2005 (9) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Availability of Notifications 6/94 and 114/94 for the product "Neocuron"

1. Issue of Exemption Eligibility: The main issue in this case revolved around whether the product "Neocuron" qualifies for the exemption under Notifications 6/94 and 114/94 as an anaesthetic. The dispute arose as the product was claimed to be an anaesthetic drug by the appellants based on its usage during surgery as an adjuvant to anaesthesia.

2. Interpretation of Anaesthetic: The definition and interpretation of the term "anaesthetic" played a crucial role in determining the eligibility of the product for the exemption. The dictionary meaning of anaesthesia, as well as the characteristics of an anaesthetic drug, were analyzed in detail. The argument was made that anything related to anaesthesia should be considered anaesthetic, and the product in question, according to the chemical examiner's report, acted as an adjuvant to anaesthesia.

3. Expert Opinions and Medical Certificates: The appellants presented certificates from doctors certifying that the product, Pancuronium Bromide, is a non-depolarising muscle relaxant used exclusively during surgery under general anaesthesia. These certificates emphasized the integral role of the product in balanced anaesthesia and its exclusive use as an anaesthetic product globally.

4. Analysis of Evidence: The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including references from the British National Formulary, to establish that the product, despite being a muscle relaxant, is crucial for achieving the desired state of surgical anaesthesia. The product's role as a muscle relaxant in the context of modern anaesthetic techniques was highlighted to support the argument that it qualifies as an anaesthetic for the purpose of the notifications.

5. Classification List Approval: An additional issue arose regarding the approval of the classification list by the proper officer, which denied the appellants the benefit of the notification in question. The Assistant Commissioner noted that no appeal was filed against this approval, suggesting that duty payment should align with the approved classification list. However, the operational status of this approval during the dispute period was unclear, leading to a remand for further verification by the Assistant Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the product "Neocuron" qualifies as an anaesthetic eligible for exemption under Notifications 6/94 and 114/94 based on its role in achieving surgical anaesthesia. The decision also highlighted the need for clarification on the approval status of the classification list, necessitating a remand for further verification.