Skip to content


Fairdeal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1989)(43)ELT516TriDel
AppellantFairdeal Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....tariff or was it eligible to exemption in terms of notification no. 55/75-central excise as a "drug intermediate". the lower authorities held that glyoxal was a versatile chemical having many applications and therefore, was not eligible to be exempted as a "drug intermediate".4. at the hearing before us shri rajadhyaksha drew our attention to our order no. c-550 to 552/1983 dated 30th november 1983,1984(16) e.l.t.368 (tribunal) in appeals bearing nos. cd(sb)(t) a. no. 350/80-c, cd(sb)(t) a. no. 689/80-c and cd(sb)(t) a.no. 690/80-c all filed by the same appellants, the issue involved being the same. in that order, we have held that glyoxal was eligible for the benefit of notification no.55/75-ce.5. shri sundar rajan referred to order no. 96/84-c dated 20th february 1984 in appeal.....
Judgment:
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were as appeal filed before it.

2. This appeal arises out of the consolidated Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-1039 to 1041,1180,1172,1173/80R dated 24th July 1980 by which the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay disposed of a number of appeals against orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. We are concerned in the present case with the Assistant Collector's Order No. S/6-C-3897/79R dated 25th March 1980.

3. The question involved in the present appeal is whether impoted GLYOXAL was chargeable to additional (countervailing) duty of customs corresponding to central excise duty under item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff or was it eligible to exemption in terms of Notification No. 55/75-Central Excise as a "drug intermediate". The lower authorities held that Glyoxal was a versatile chemical having many applications and therefore, was not eligible to be exempted as a "drug intermediate".

4. At the hearing before us Shri Rajadhyaksha drew our attention to our Order No. C-550 to 552/1983 dated 30th November 1983,1984(16) E.L.T.368 (Tribunal) in appeals bearing Nos. CD(SB)(T) A. No. 350/80-C, CD(SB)(T) A. No. 689/80-C and CD(SB)(T) A.No. 690/80-C all filed by the same appellants, the issue involved being the same. In that order, we have held that Glyoxal was eligible for the benefit of Notification No.55/75-CE.5. Shri Sundar Rajan referred to Order No. 96/84-C dated 20th February 1984 in Appeal No.CD(SB)(T)A. No. 92/81-C and requested that a direction may be incorporated in the order giving liberty to the Customs to make enquiry to satisfy themselves that the substance was used as a "drug intermediate". We consider this a reasonable request.

6. In the circumstances and following the ratio of our Order No. C-550 to 552/1983, we allow the present appeal and direct that the consequential relief shall be granted by the concerned Customs authorities to the appellants within three months from the date of communication of this order. The Customs may make enquiries, if they wish, to satisfy themselves that the imported substance was indeed used as a "drug intermediate".


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //