is was the item manufactured by the petitioner during the relevant period a drug or an intermediate in terms of the numberification.
1568 69 nm of 1988 from the order dated 26.11.1987 of the customs excise gold companytrol appellate tribunal new delhi in appeal number ed sb 1648/84 c and 1923 of 1984 c. ramaswamy.
therefore.
being aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred appeals before the appellate tribunal and the same were allowed hence these appeals.
the issue involved in the present case is whether the acetic anhydride manufactured by the respondent and sold to drug pg number545 manufacturers i.e. m s idpl is eligible to benefit of exemption under the numberification number 55/75 ce dated 1st march 1975 as amended by the numberification number 62/78 ce dated 1.3.1978 as drug intermediate.
sushma suri for the respondent.
these are appeals under section 35l b of the central excises and salt act 1944 hereinafter referred to as the act arising out of the order of the tribunal dated 26th numberember 1987.
civil appellate jurlsdlctloncivil appeal number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharjij.
the aforesaid orders of the assistant companylector were challenged by the department by preferring appeals before the companylector of central excise appeals .
the respondent manufactured acetic anhydride falling under tariff item number68 of the central excise tariff it had filed refund claims for rs.157442.08 and rs 114587.74 being the duty paid on acetic anhydride during the period from 5.2.1981 to 28.6.1981 and from 23.7.1982 1 to 26.2.1982 companytending that these goods were exempt from the payment of duty of excise leviable thereon under the numberification referred to hereinbefore it was companytended that acetic anhydride is a drug intermediate and all such clearance for which the refund was claimed had been made for delivery to the drug manufacturers if drug intermediate is sold or supplied to a drug manufacturer then under the numberification duty was number payable the question.
indu malhotra and ms.
madras the companylector appeals allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the revenue and annulled the order of the assistant companylector bluru sanctioning sums of rs.35261.74 rs.87943.40 respectively and directed that those amounts he returned to the department.
additional solicitor general n.p.
