ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. The appellants imported ‘Dimethy Sulphoxide’ under a Bill of Entry No. C-290 dated 8-12-1981. Claiming that the imported goods were drug intermediate used for the manufacture of a basic drug, namely, Trimethoprim I.P., the appellants claimed exemption from CV duty in terms of Serial No. 19 of Central Excise Notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1-3-1975.
The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claim on the ground that the imported goods could not be considered as ‘drug intermediate” for the purpose of the Notification. The Appellate Collector, before whom an appeal was preferred, rejected the same holding that the imported goods constituted a compound having many applications and could not be considered as a ‘drug’ in common parlance, though one of the uses could be the use as a “medicine. Hence, the present appeal.
2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none was present for the appellants, but the appellants requested, in writing, for a decision on merits. We, therefore, examined the file with the assistance of Smt. J.K. Chander, JDR.
3. Smt. Chander submitted that, in this appeal, the question to be decided is the applicability of Central Excise Notification No. 55/75 to the imported goods for purposes of a decision on CV duty, which is additional duty. The learned JDR cited a judgment of the Tribunal (Orders Nos. 676-714/86-C dated 28-11-1986) and submitted that, according to this decision, an exemption notification, issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, could not be extended to additional duty of customs which is leviable under a different law. She further submitted that the Tribunal’s order (supra) took into consideration various judgments of the Tribunal, several High Courts and the Supreme Court.
4. We have considered the facts of the case, the grounds of the appeal and the submissions made by the learned JDR. We have perused the Tribunal’s orders cited by the learned JDR. In our earlier judgment, we referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the following terms:
“The Supreme Court, in the Union of India and Ors. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. and Ors. “1986 (25) ELT 849 (S.C.)’ held – ‘It is obvious that when a notification granting exemption from duty of Excise is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power under Rule 8(1) simpliciter, without anything more, it must, by reason of the definition of “duty” contained in Rule 2, Clause (v) which according to the well recognised canons of construction would be projected in Rule 8(1), be read as granting exemption only in respect of duty of Excise payable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.”
5. In view of this, we, following our earlier judgment, find that the goods imported by the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal, as already announced in the Court.