Synthokem Vs. Collector of Customs

Synthokem vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 04, 1985

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/2064

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/2064
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Mar 04, 1985
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Synthokem

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1989)(43)ELT493TriDel

Excerpt

.....additional (countervailing) duty of customs collected by the customs authorities on a consignment of epichlorohydrine imported by the appellants. the claim for refund was based on central excise notification no. 55/75 which exempted drugs, medicines and drug intermediates from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. the appellate collector denied the exemption on the basis that the substance was a versatile chemical whose predominant use was not in the manufacture of drugs.3. we have heard shri m. rabindra nath tagore, chartered accountant, on behalf of the appellants and shri a.s. sunder rajan, on behalf of the respondents.4. the appellants are a small scale drug manufacturing unit holding a drug licence issued by the drugs controlling authority, secunderabad and the licence shows that they are authorised to manufacture, inter alia, glyceryl guaicolate. the appellants have produced a certificate from the drugs controller and food (health) authority, government of andhra pradesh to the effect that epichlorohydrine and guaiacol are used as drug intermediates for the manufacture of a drug glyceryl guaicolate. it is also seen from order no. s/49-651/84cl dated 31-12-1984 passed by the collector of customs (appeals), bombay that glyceryl guaicolate ether finds mention in the merck index as an expectorant. in the circumstances, there appears to be no good reason why the consignment of epichlorohydrine imported by the appellants should not get exemption from additional duty of customs in terms of notification no. 55/75 to the extent the appellants are able to satisfy the concerned departmental authorities that the imported chemical has been used in the manufacture of the drug. we accordingly, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Full Judgment

1.The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.

2. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 19-8-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay whereby he rejected the appellants' claim for refund of the additional (countervailing) duty of Customs collected by the customs authorities on a consignment of Epichlorohydrine imported by the appellants. The claim for refund was based on Central Excise Notification No. 55/75 which exempted drugs, medicines and drug intermediates from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. The Appellate Collector denied the exemption on the basis that the substance was a versatile chemical whose predominant use was not in the manufacture of drugs.

3. We have heard Shri M. Rabindra Nath Tagore, Chartered Accountant, on behalf of the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, on behalf of the Respondents.

4. The appellants are a small scale drug manufacturing unit holding a drug licence issued by the Drugs Controlling Authority, Secunderabad and the licence shows that they are authorised to manufacture, inter alia, Glyceryl Guaicolate. The appellants have produced a certificate from the Drugs Controller and Food (Health) Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh to the effect that Epichlorohydrine and Guaiacol are used as drug intermediates for the manufacture of a drug Glyceryl Guaicolate. It is also seen from Order No. S/49-651/84CL dated 31-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay that Glyceryl Guaicolate Ether finds mention in the Merck Index as an expectorant. In the circumstances, there appears to be no good reason why the consignment of Epichlorohydrine imported by the appellants should not get exemption from additional duty of Customs in terms of Notification No. 55/75 to the extent the appellants are able to satisfy the concerned Departmental authorities that the imported chemical has been used in the manufacture of the drug. We accordingly, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Synthokem vs Collector of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition