Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2003 (11) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Tariff Act, 1985. Among the pharmaceutical products, they manufacture Ampicillin capsules which are exclusively for export and it is manufactured under generic name "Ampicillina". The product also carries the trade mark of 'Medispan' on the said product. It was classified as P or P Medicine under chapter heading 3003.10 attracting duty at 15% adv. and the classification list in this case had been approved on 9-3-1995. The lower authority took a view that the product required to be classified under Chapter heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty. He took a view that they had manufactured and exported the aforesaid product affixed with their monogram under bond between 23-1-1995 and 12-6-1995 and had availed the credit on the input us....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments are not satisfied in the instant case. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with their contention and dismissed their appeal and hence appellants are aggrieved with his order. 3. Learned Counsel Shri Saravanan submitted that the issue is now covered in their favour in terms of the judgement rendered in the case of Norris Medicines Ltd. v. cce & cc surat, 2003 (56) RLT 353 (CEGAT-Mum.). He submits that the facts are identical and the Bombay Bench has followed the ratio of the following judgments and prays for allowing their appeal :- 1. Orissa Synthetics v. CCE, BBSR - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 111 (T) 2. CCE Vadodara v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd., 2000 (121) E.L.T. 557 (T) = 2000 (41) RLT 243 (CEGAT). 3. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg.Co....