Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)(190)ELT23Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There was a difference of opinion as regards the classification of medicaments in the form of tablets/injections having fixed dose i.e.combination of Vitamin B1, B6, B12. While the Western Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Emerck India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai held the products are classifiable as medicaments under chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, another coordinate Bench of CESTAT in the case of P&B Laboratories Ltd v. CCE, Mumbai-V arrived at a conclusion that fixed dose combination of Vitamin B1, B6, B12 in injection as well as in tablet form fall under heading 29.36. This bench has been constituted to hear the matter for resolving these divergences.2. After hearing both sides & considering the material on record, the opinions of Drugs Technical Advisory Board & other relevant material, it is found and held as-Micronova Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of CCE Bangalore Tribunal in its order dtd 31.5.96, while examining the classification of Vitamin B Complex Tablets NF...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per : Ashok Jindal One of the appellants namely M/s Calyx Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (the Exporter) filed appeal against the confiscation and penalty of the impugned goods and M/s Deekay Shipping Services (the CHA), Shri Ketan Adhia, Jitendra Shah and Shri Shailesh Sawant have filed appeals against the imposition of penalties. 2. The facts of the case are that the exporter filed two shipping bills through their CHA for export of the goods viz. ZOLEDRONATE and it was alleged against the appellants that to export the said goods they require a No Objection Certificate issued by the Asst. Drug Controller of India permitting clearance for export. The goods were brought to the export shed. On scrutiny of the documents of export submitted by the appellants, it was observed that there was difference in the signature of the Asst. Drug Controller and it was found that the signature on the No Objection Certificate was forged. Accordingly, the goods were seized and confiscated. Redemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)(17)ELT357Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The applicants, M/s. Navrang Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. imported a consignment of Oxytetracycline HCL BP 73. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, under his Order No. S/10-82/83B, dated 4-8-83 directed confiscation of the said consignment, but however gave an option to the applicants herein to pay fine of Rs. 13 lakhs in lieu of confiscation.3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Collector, the applicants preferred an appeal No. 1205 of 1983 before this Bench.During the pendency of the appeal the applicants also made an application No. 230 of 1983 for stay. In the application for stay the applicants prayed that they may be permitted to clear the goods viz.Oxytetracycline HCL without payment of fine of Rs. 13 lakhs or any other amount. This application came up for consideration before this Bench to which one of us [Hegde, Member (J)] was a party. The Respondent Collector of Customs, Bombay, was represented by Shri Krishan Kumar, the Junior Departmental Representati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(14)ECC199
1. M/s. Yogesh Brothers have tiled this appeal to the Tribunal against the order No. S/10-1011/86/ACC(1) dated 27.6.1986 of the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay confiscating absolutely a consignment of two cartons containing Laminaria Sea Tangle Tents and Golden Cardboard boxes non sterile imported by air and sought to be cleared under B/E No. 3927 dated 9.4.1986 for the reason that the import of the goods in question was not covered under the OGL in Appendix 6 SI. No. 34(iii) of the Import Policy 1985-88. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported the aforesaid goods by air and sought their clearance under the OGL claiming their release as Intra Uterine Contraceptive device. The Customs authorities held that the goods in question were not intra uterine contraceptive devices falling under OGL in Appendix 6 SI. No. 34(iii) but they were Sea Tangle Tents used for terminating pregnancy. In the show cause notice issued to the importer it was further alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC425DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act. The appellants have argued that their imports of DL-Methionine were fully covered under OGL C.V. dated 15-12-76 as all the conditions therein had been fulfilled. The Deputy Collector and thereafter the Appellate Collector had wrongly held that only the manufacturer of drugs could take advantage of the OGL. There was no warrant in such interpretation of the OGL. The appellants representative has further argued that there was no dispute regarding the other conditions of the OGL that the goods imported were drugs, that the importer was an actual user, that he was registered with the D.G.T.D. or the State Drug Control authorities, and has a licence under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and required the goods in his own industry. The necessary documents to show compliance with these requirements were produced to the Customs authorities, at the time of import and photo-copies have been filed along ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)LC654Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Liberty Oil Mills filed a petition dated 18-1-1982 to the Government of India under old Section 131 of the Customs Act and this has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B ibid and is to be treated as an appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal is against the Order No. S/10-58/81/A, dated 24-4-1981 of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, under which he exercised the power under old Section 130 of the Customs Act and reviewed the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs Group 'A' allowing clearance of copra valued at Rs. 20,09,461/- c.i.f. imported by the Appellants under Bill of Entry No. 2368/818, dated 20-2-1981 per s.s. ZINOVIY SOLOYEV. Shri Banatwala submitted that this consignment was by way of replacement under OGL No. 4/80 of goods imported earlier. There was no dispute regarding this fact. Shri Banatwala submitted that the Appellants imported 1000 M/Tons of copra from Zanzibar earlier under Bill of Entry No. 1938/10, dated 1-3-1979.On 10-3-1979 there was fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)(43)LC336Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No S/49- 270/84L dated 22.11.1984 confirming the order-in-original No S/10-254/84A dated 20.9.1984 with a modification that the redemption fine imposed may be reduced to Rs 4000/-.2. The appellant imported nutmegs valued at Rs. 15.984/- from Singapore, and sought the clearance of the consignment in the month of August 1984 under OGL, claiming the same permissible under entry No 48 of List 4 to Appendix 6 of Policy AM 1984-85 and OGL No 15/84 issued on 12.4.1984, and filed Bill of Entry No 915/2. The clearance was however objected to by the Department on the ground that it was a canalised item under Appendix 5 of the Policy 1984-85, and also that the entry No 48 in List 4 of Appendix stood deleted as early as 17.4.1984 by issue of the Public Notice. Notice to show cause was accordingly issued and in reply thereto, the appellant submitted that OGL No 15/84 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(133)ELT140Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These Nine appeals are filed by the same appellants. The issue being common, these are being disposed of by this single order.2. The appellants manufactured Diagnostic Reagent Kits and Diagnostic Reagent Strips. The classification was under Tariff Heading 3822. The manufacture of such substances requires a licence to be taken under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellants were in possession of such a licence.3. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act required compliance with the conditions prescribed in Rule 74 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Two of the sub-rules related to drawal of samples. Sub-rules (c) and (1) read as follows : "(c) the licensee shall either in his own laboratory or in any other laboratory approved by the licensing authority [under Part XV (A) of these rules] test each batch or lot of the raw material used by him for the manufacture of his products and also each batch of the final product and shall maintain records of registers showing the particulars in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(162)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have been filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad made in Order-in-Original No. 17/CEX/2001 dated 24.10.2001 confirming show cause notice dt. 3.4.2000 and demanding duty of Rs. 19,33,473/- and demand of reversal of modvat credit of Rs. 10,37,930/-; imposing penalty of Rs. 25,51,294/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, and Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The other appeal is filed by the Manager of the office of the assessee against imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. The appellant is manufacturing Pharmaceutical products and has its factory at Nasik. It availed modvat credit on various inputs used in the manufacture of medicines. Manufacture and sale of drugs is controlled in India by the Act known as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. In terms of Rules 71(7), 74(o), 76(2) and 78(p) of the Dru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. 1. M/s. German Remedies Limited (hereinafter called as M/s. GRL) manufacture Bulk Drugs and Pharmaceutical Formulations. The bulk drugs are made at Patalganga and the formulations are made at Goa. Credit of the duty paid at Patalganga is taken as Modvat Credit by the Goa unit.The movements of bulk drugs from one unit to another did not involve any sale. The declaration as required under Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 were filed by the manufacturer from time to time.M/s. GRL were also filing certain returns to the Drug Control Authorities in terms of the relevant Act. The officers of the Directorate of Anti Evasion compared the valuation of the Bulk Drugs as disclosed to the Central Excise Authorities and to the Drug Control Authorities. Where the later declarations were based on the details of various items of costing, the valuation for the Central Excise was merely described as "Selling Price" fixed by the company. The prima facie view of the officers was that the value...
Tag this Judgment!