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.

Pharmed (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Pharmed (P) Ltd. vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 21, 1990
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/5523

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 Delhi
Judge
Decided On
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

Pharmed (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(164)ELT361TriDel

Excerpt

.....house, bombay referring samples of the imported substance to m/s. italab private ltd. and m/s. c.m.a.laboratories. both these laboratories have, after analysis of these samples, certified that the samples were of standard quality. our attention has also been drawn to the impugned order from which it is noted that the appellant had submitted end-use certificates issued by the superintendent of central excise, bombay stating that the imported substance had been utilized in the manufacture of the life saving drug dynazide tablets. further, certificate from the commissioner, food & drug administration, maharashtra govt. to the effect that the imported substance was of high purity of about 99 to 100% had also been produced. the certificate also stated that the goods dynazide tablets manufactured by the appellants were marketed as a tuberculostatic drug.this medicine also figures in the schedule to the drugs (prices control) order, 1979.7. having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, there is little doubt that the imported substance conformed to pharmacopoeial standards.otherwise, it would not have been certified as conforming to standards by the two laboratories to whom references were made by the assistant drugs controller, bombay customs and the food and drugs administration, maharashtra government would also not have issued the certificates which they had issued. these circumstances, together with the fact that morphazinamide is shown in the schedule to the drugs (prices control) order, constitute, in our opinion, sufficient evidence to show that the imported substance conformed to pharmacopoeial standards.8. in the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.

Full Judgment

1. The issue arising for determination in all these appeals is whether the chemical 'Morphazinamide Hydro-chloride' imported by the appellants was entitled to exemption from additional duty of customs in view of the provisions of Notification 234/82-C.E. dated 1-11-1982 as amended.

2. The claims of the appellants for refund of the additional duty of customs did not meet with success at the hands of the lower authorities. Hence these appeals.

3. We have heard Shri V.B. Akolkar, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri V. Chandrasekaran, SDR, for the respondent.

4. Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 exempts from the levy of excise duty several classes of goods. One such class is : "All bulk drugs, medicines and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified".

"In this notification "bulk drugs" means any chemical or biological or plant product, conforming to pharmacopoeial standards, used for the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of diseases in human beings or animals, and as such or as an ingredient in any formulation." 5. The Collector (Appeals) has held that since the imported substance does not figure in any official pharmacopeia including Indian Pharmacopoeia, it cannot be treated as a drug conforming to pharmacopoeial standards.

6. Our attention has been drawn to references made by the Assistant Drugs Controller, New Customs House, Bombay referring samples of the imported substance to M/s. Italab Private Ltd. and M/s. C.M.A.Laboratories. Both these laboratories have, after analysis of these samples, certified that the samples were of standard quality. Our attention has also been drawn to the impugned order from which it is noted that the appellant had submitted end-use certificates issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay stating that the imported substance had been utilized in the manufacture of the Life Saving Drug Dynazide Tablets. Further, certificate from the Commissioner, Food & Drug Administration, Maharashtra Govt. to the effect that the imported substance was of high purity of about 99 to 100% had also been produced. The certificate also stated that the goods Dynazide Tablets manufactured by the appellants were marketed as a tuberculostatic drug.

This medicine also figures in the Schedule to The Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979.

7. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, there is little doubt that the imported substance conformed to pharmacopoeial standards.

Otherwise, it would not have been certified as conforming to standards by the two laboratories to whom references were made by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Bombay Customs and the Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra Government would also not have issued the certificates which they had issued. These circumstances, together with the fact that Morphazinamide is shown in the Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, constitute, in our opinion, sufficient evidence to show that the imported substance conformed to pharmacopoeial standards.

8. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial