Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal the issue is whether single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin is required to pay duty at the material time namely February, 1989 to March, 1989 in view of the fact that Rifampicin was taken out of the 1st Schedule and brought into the IInd Schedule in the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 and also in view of the Notification 44/90 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents did not pay duty on the single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin because of Notification 29/88 according to which all formulations, based on the list of Bulk Drugs specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 either individually or in combination with other drugs specified in the First Schedule attract nil rate of duty as per Serial No. 1 to the notification.Rifampicin was taken out of the First Schedule and brought under Second Schedule by issue of order FO/82/(E), dated 18-1-1989 which meant that all formulations based on Rifampic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. These stay applications arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated Twenty-five show cause notices issued to the appellants. "The issue raised in these notices is related to valuation of excisable goods i.e. medicaments, in a situation where medicaments are being manufactured on loan license arrangement, wherein the raw material and packaging materials are supplied by one holding the loan license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the loan licensees) and the medicaments are manufactured at the premises of another manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as the job worker). From the investigation conducted by the department, it appeared that the loan licensees have obtained licenses for manufacture of the said medicaments from the Drug Licensing authorities and the said medicaments were manufactured by the loan licensees using the factory premises, equipments and expert staff of the job workers. All records were maintained b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC869DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Sec. 129-A of the Customs Act filed by M/s.Sun Export Corporation against Orders No. S/10-83/81 dated 6-11-81 of the Deputy Collector of Customs and No. S/49-76/82-L dated 30-9-82 of the Appellate Collector of Customs under which a fine of Rs. 15,000 has been levied in lieu of confiscation of the consignment of 20 steel drums of Sorbitol 70% USP valued at Rs. 28,985 imported under Bill of Entry IGM No. 962 item No. 280 Ex. s.s. LENINO. The learned Advocate has contended that the orders of the lower authorities are based on mis-application of the Import Policy. They have held that the entry at Sr. No. 392 "Sorbitol" includes Sorbitol solution 70% USP which has been imported by the appellants. This is not correct as the two commodities are quite separate. The learned Advocate contended that the importers had submitted two licences which had been specifically endorsed with permission to import goods under O.G.L. The basic claim of the appellants was that the so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)(168)ELT119Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Advocate, for the appellants states that credit has been denied on a small part of the raw material used for testing the quality which is required under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 before rest of the raw material is taken up for manufacture of medicine. He further states that without such testing for quality control it would not be possible to manufacture medicines for human consumption or to meet the legal requirement under the said Drugs Act. As such, it is his submission that use of a small part of the raw material for quality check is part of the overall manufacturing process. In this regard, he also cites decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works -1991 (55) E.L.T.444 (S.C.).2. I have also heard Shri Bidhan Chandra, learned J.D.R. who supports the finding of the lower authorities that the raw material taken for testing is used up in the test process and the same is not used for production of f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)LC780Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the 3 appeals involve in consideration of common issue though covered by 3 different orders and hence proposed to be disposed of by this common order. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the following orders:-C/56/90-BOM - Order in original No. 190/Addl. Collr. 89 (F. No. VIII/10-165/Addl. Collr. 89 dated 30-11-1989.C/57/90-BOM - Order in original No. 192/Addl. Collr. 89 (F. No. VIII/10-164/Addl. Collr. 88) dated 30-11-1989.C/82/90-BOM - Order in original No. 164/Addl. Collr. 89 (F. No. VIII/10-161/Addl. Collr. 89) dated 17-11-1989.2. Shri J.C. Patel, the ld. advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants in appeal No. C/56 & C/57/90 during the hearing. In respect of the appeal filed by M/s. Atul Product Ltd. they have requested for decision on their appeal on merits without their presence.3. The issue relates to the question whether acetic anhydride, which was specified under Notification No. 318A/86, dated 14-5-1986 would attract the provision of Chapter IVB of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(84)LC491Tri(Mum.)bai
This is the party's appeal against the impugned order dated 24.1.1995 of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, praying for setting aside the same, and to hold that the imported goods is not covered under Negative List with consequential relief of refund of fine and penalty.1. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported 9700 kgs. of Balsa Medendron Mukul in 130 bags under Bill of Entry No. 5640 dt.20.5.1993 (IGM No. 960 dated 17.5.1993 per S.S. Vega-Valued at Rs. 48,500/- GIF through CHA No. 11/234. They declared as raw material for agarbathi. The goods were first checked and test report obtained from Deputy Chief Chemist. As per the literature produced by the appellants item appears to be widely used in making of Ayurvedic and unani medicines, and also in perfumes and agarbathi. As per Public Notice No.117 (PN) 92-97 import of any crude drug required for making Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines not included in the list annexed thereto require a licence. The appellant did not s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)(77)ELT398Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,97,239/- towards duty vide O/O No. 18/Demand/94, dated 31-10-1994.2. Shri Christian, the Id. advocate, appearing for the applicants pleads that they have been claiming approval of the price list in terms of Notification No. 245/83, dated 13-9-1983 by claiming 15% discount from the maximum retail price under the Drugs (Price Control) Order. As per this Notification, they have to claim this 15% discount after deducting the excise duty. The Collector has held that the excise duty, which can be deducted can only the basic excise duty, in view of the provisions of Central Excise (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982.Hence, the special excise duty cannot be claimed whereas Section 4(4)(d) clearly indicates that the duty payable is not only the Central Excise duty but also the duties of excise payable under other Central Acts. In view of these provisions of Section 4, the objection upheld by the Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(148)ELT1043Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Duty had been demanded from Micro Orgo Chem, and penalty imposed on it, and its employees on the ground that the roxithromycin that it manufactured was not a bulk drug within the meaning of the Drugs Prices (Control) Order 1987, for the reason that it was not of pharmacopoeial standard.2. Counsel for the applicant agrees that the commodity was not entitled to the exemption but says that extended period of limitation invoked would not be available. The applicant, in its classification list, which had been approved, had not indicated the products to be a pharmacopoeia, whereas it did so for all the other medicaments contained in that list. The department therefore acted upon it.3. On the same reason, we had, in an earlier order of Fine Chemicals (Stay application E/212 & 213/2001 in appeals E/207 & 208/2001) accepted prima facie this contention and waived deposit. Accordingly we waive deposit of duty and penalty in this case and stay their recovery.4. The issue in both these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant at the relevant time was engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical goods. It applied and was granted a value based advance licence. The licence permitted it to import chemicals specified in and carrying it with an obligation to export pharmaceutical products specified in the licence. The appellant imported 16 consignments between February, 1993 to February, 1994. The Customs department received information that the appellant disposed off considerable quantities of these chemicals sold to Kantilal Manilal and Company and partly to Hoechst (India) Limited, searched the premises of the appellant and the others. The officers seized quantities of chemicals from the warehouse of Suyog Carriers in Bhiwandi and from the premises of Kantital Manilal and Company. Subsequent investigations including recording of statement of various persons were conducted. Notice was issued to the appellant before us, Kantilal Manilal and Company and Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., clear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT1061Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of medicament and availed of the exemption contained in notification 245/87. The notification provides for partial exemption from duty after allowing discount of 15% of the retail price of the medicine determined by the Drug Price Control Order. Exemption in the notification provides that in calculating the value of the medicine "the amount of excise duty payable if any" shall be deducted before allowing the discount from retail price. The assessee deducted from the retail price not only the basic excise duty but the special excise duty payable thereon. This was objected to by issue of notice. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The ground in the appeal is that the term "excise duty" referred to in the Explanation refers only duty payable under the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!