LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-74

MEDOPHARM MOHAN MANSION NO 1 THIRU VI KA ROAD CHENNAI Vs. JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Decided On April 27, 2012
MEDOPHARM Appellant
V/S
JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. It has been stated that the petitioner firm is a partnership firm, registered with the Central Excise authorities. It has been granted the registration for the manufacture of excisable goods.

(2.) The petitioner firm has also obtained the necessary licence, in terms of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, from the drug authorities concerned, for the manufacture of certain drugs in its factory situated at Kayarambedu village, Chengleput District. The petitioner has also engaged in the export of its finished goods. During the course of its business, the petitioner firm had imported a consignment containing 5,000 kilograms of Metronidazole BP 98, for the purpose of manufacture of its finished goods, from its overseas supplier, namely, M/s. China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Corporation, Nanjing, China, vide invoice No. CSU 20211113, dated 29-11-2000. The said goods had been cleared on demand of the appropriate customs duty, duly assessed by the customs authorities concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner firm had imported another consignment containing 12,000 kilograms of the product, from M/s. National Service Corporation, China. The said goods had also been cleared on demand of the necessary customs duty, in terms of the various ex-bond bills of entry. After the clearance of the goods, they had been taken to the registered factory of the petitioner's firm, for the manufacture of tablets. The petitioner firm had availed the benefit of the input duty credit in terms of the Cenvat credit Rules in force at the relevant point of time.

(3.) It has been further stated that the customs authorities concerned had also asked the petitioner firm to pay Anti-Dumping Duty leviable on the goods cleared by them, as the goods had been imported from China. The petitioner firm had also paid the Anti-Dumping Duty, as claimed by the authorities concerned.