2006 (2) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Roxythromycin for exemption under Notification No. 8/95-C.E. and 8/96-C.E.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed the issue of whether Roxythromycin is eligible for exemption under specific notifications. The lower authorities had denied the exemption, stating that the impugned goods were not specified in an official pharmacopoeia. However, the appellant argued that the Martindale Pharmacopoeia, where Roxythromycin was listed, should be considered an official pharmacopoeia of Great Britain. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision by the Bangalore Bench, which had recognized Martindale Pharmacopoeia as official. Based on this precedent and the appellant's claim, the Tribunal concluded that Roxythromycin was entitled to exemption for the relevant period from September 1996 to December 1996. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing consequential benefits to the appellants.

In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of the Martindale Pharmacopoeia, emphasizing its publication by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society U.K. and its regulatory functions. The Tribunal noted the historical establishment of the Society and its authority conferred by royal charters and Acts of Parliament. The Tribunal acknowledged the Society's professional Development Directorate and Publishing Directorate responsible for scientific publications, including Martindale. By considering the nature of the publication and the Society's role, the Tribunal concluded that Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia should be recognized as an official pharmacopoeia of Great Britain.

The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the earlier ruling in the case of Reddy's Laboratories by the Bangalore Bench, which had explicitly held Martindale Pharmacopoeia as an official pharmacopoeia of Great Britain. This precedent, coupled with the appellant's claim that Roxythromycin was specified in Martindale, led the Tribunal to grant the exemption for the specified period. By aligning with the Bangalore Bench's interpretation and the appellant's submission, the Tribunal provided a favorable judgment, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, thereby granting consequential benefits to the appellants.