Page 232 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

622 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 622 (Tri. - Hyd.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, HYDERABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T) and Ms. Rachna Gupta,
Member (J)
AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD
Final Order No. A/31114/2019, dated 20-11-2019 in Appeal No. C/1952/2011
Pharmaceuticals for repacking - Exemption - Re-import - Since repack-
ing amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as
well as Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff it cannot be
called as “repair or reconditioning” under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. -
Hence, exemption under notification ibid on re-import not available. [para 7]
Words and Phrases - Reconditioning - It is synonymous with repair.
[para 7]
Appeal rejected
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Dilipkumar & Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Relied on ................. [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Samtel Color Ltd. — 2001 (135) E.L.T. 288 (Tribunal) — Distinguished .......... [Para 4]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 127/95, dated 14-12-1995 .............................................................................. [Para 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri N. Ram Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (T)]. - In the impugned
Order-in-Appeal No. 19/2011(H-II) Cus., dated 27-4-2011, the first appellate au-
thority denied the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003 to
the appellant which is assailed in this appeal. This exemption notification ex-
empts from Customs duty goods which are re-imported within three years of
their export for “repair” or “reconditioning”.
2. The appellants are a 100% EOU manufacturing bulk drugs and
formulations and had filed Bill of Entry No. 2310231, dated 8-11-2010 claiming
exemption from Customs duties under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated
31-3-2003. The imported goods were sent by their overseas buyer Aurobindo
Pharma USA Inc. vide Invoice No. CUS-E099, dated 31-4-2010 for repacking. The
department observed that as per the aforesaid notification, goods are exempted
when re-imported within three years from the date of exportation for repair or
reconditioning. Since the goods in this case were re-imported for the purpose of
repacking, the Department argued that the exemption of the said notification has
been wrongly availed and hence the appropriate customs duty was proposed to
be recovered from the appellants. The demand in the show cause notice was
initially confirmed by the Order-in-Original No. 05/2011-Cus., dated 19-1-2011
and the appellant’s appeal assailing it has been rejected by the order under
challenge by the first appellate authority.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  232