Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Fdc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Fdc Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 13, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41780

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fdc Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

1. certain bulk drugs were imported by the appellants at the port of mumbai. they were to get these bulk drugs manufactured on loan licence basis at the premises of m/s. savill pharma labs pvt. ltd. situated at goregaon, mumbai. they also sought the benefit of customs duty under notification no. 17/2001-cus., under serial no. 81 of the table therein. as per the conditions prescribed and this entry in the table to the notification, they were required to comply with the provisions of customs (import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) rules, 1996. rule 3 of the rules specifies that the manufacturer has to give an undertaking that the said goods cleared at the concessional rate would be utilized in the manner prescribed under the customs. these conditions have been fulfilled under the rules by m/s. savill pharma labs, goregaon. the customs authorities had denied the benefit by taking the view that the manufacturer has to be necessarily by the importer m/s. fdc in this case who have not given the necessary undertaking as provided under the 1996 rules and thus the benefit was not eligible to the said importers viz. m/s. fdc.2. prima facie we find that the benefit of notification is for the goods and not for the importers manufacturer. since the goods are being manufactured at the premises of m/s. savill pharma labs and they have followed prescribed procedures and filed declaration under 1996 rules, we find no reasons to uphold the duty demand or at this prima facie stage denial of the notification.3. consequently full waiver and stay of the amount is ordered pending regular hearing of the appeal. application disposed in above terms.

Full Judgment

1. Certain bulk drugs were imported by the appellants at the port of Mumbai. They were to get these bulk drugs manufactured on loan licence basis at the premises of M/s. Savill Pharma Labs Pvt. Ltd. situated at Goregaon, Mumbai. They also sought the benefit of Customs duty under Notification No. 17/2001-CUS., under Serial No. 81 of the table therein. As per the conditions prescribed and this entry in the table to the Notification, they were required to comply with the provisions of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Rule 3 of the Rules specifies that the manufacturer has to give an undertaking that the said goods cleared at the concessional rate would be utilized in the manner prescribed under the Customs. These conditions have been fulfilled under the Rules by M/s. Savill Pharma Labs, Goregaon. The Customs authorities had denied the benefit by taking the view that the manufacturer has to be necessarily by the importer M/s. FDC in this case who have not given the necessary undertaking as provided under the 1996 Rules and thus the benefit was not eligible to the said importers viz. M/s. FDC.2. Prima facie we find that the benefit of Notification is for the goods and not for the importers manufacturer. Since the goods are being manufactured at the premises of M/s. Savill Pharma Labs and they have followed prescribed procedures and filed declaration under 1996 Rules, we find no reasons to uphold the duty demand or at this prima facie stage denial of the Notification.

3. Consequently full waiver and stay of the amount is ordered pending regular hearing of the appeal. Application disposed in above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial