LexUNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. A v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 (SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Chapter 29-Sub-heading 2913.00-Bulk drugs-Excise duty on- Exemption Notification No. 234186 dated 3.4.1986 exempting bulk drugs from C excise duty w.ef 1.3.1986-Assessee manufacturer filing classification lists on 3.3.1986 also showing the bulk drugs liable to 15% duty as per the extant provisions-Later, after issuance of Notification No. 234186 assessee filing certificate of the Drug Controller and claimed exemption benefit under Notification No. 234186-Exemption denied by the Revenue as also by Customs, D Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal on the ground that assessee did not claim benefit of exemption at the time of filing classification lists so as to enable the Assistant Collector to fix a period for production of certificate from Drugs Controller that drugs were bulk drugs-Held, denial of benefit of exemption notification to manufacturer was unfair-No time has been fixed by E "proper ofjicer"for filing the certificate of Drugs Controller-Nor is it provided that benefit of exemption should be claimed at the time of filing of classifica/ion lists-Notification No. 234186 squarely applies to the manufacturer- Manufacturer is entitled to benefit of the notification from the date of filing the classification lists. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3880/1993. From th.e Judgment and Order dated 27.4.1993 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No. E.7171788- C. Sandeep Narain, for Mis. S. Narain & Co. for the Appellant. Rajiv Nanda and B. Krishna Prasad, for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 87 F G H 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A The challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/717/88-C. dated 26th April, 1993. The point that arises for consideration is; whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.234/86, dated April 3, 1986, granting B exemption to bulk drugs falling under sub-heading 2913.00 of Chapter 29 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from the date of filing of classification lists. c It would be relevant to refer to the facts giving rise to this appeal. The appellant is a manufacturer of bulk drugs. The drugs manufactured by it were classified under tariff item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and they were exempt under Notification No.234/82 dated 1.1.1982. With effect from 1.3.1986, the new classification was given effect to under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short' the Act') On March 3, 1986, D under the Act the appellant filed classification lists categorizing the bulk drugs under the new tariff heading 30, having nil rate of duty. The Superintendent, Central Excise corrected the classification as falling under heading 2913.00 and pointed out that the bulk drugs were exempted. At that time, the rate of duty payable under heading 2913.00 was 15% and that was what the appellant had shown when it refiled the classification list. However, E the appellant subsequently claimed the benefit of the said notification no.234/ 86 dated 3.4.1986. To comply with the requirement of the said notification, the appellant appUed for a certificate to the Drugs Controller of the Government of India. The said certificate was issued on 24.6.1986. The appellant submitted the said certificate to the concerned authorities. On the ground that the appellant F was not eligible for exemption and the duty payable at the rate of 15% was not paid, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, issued three show cause notices on 24.7.1986, 6.11.1986 and 6.1.1987 which relate to the periods 1.3.1986 to 2.4.1986, 11.4.1986 to 27.7.86 and 28.7.1986 to 20.11,1986 respectively. Rejecting the claim of the appellant for exemption under G notification no. 234, dated 3.4.1986, the Assistant Collector confirmed that it was liable to pay duty at the rate of 15%. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. On further appeal, on April 26, 1993, the CEGA T confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant did not claim the benefit of exemption at the time of filing the classification l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.