2008 (10) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility for exemption of two products under Chapter 30 of CETA-1985 under various notifications and applicability of extended period under Section 11A.

Summary:
The issue before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved the eligibility for exemption of Calcium Borogluconate Injection and Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection under different notifications. The manufacturers claimed exemption under specific notifications, while the Revenue appealed against the decision that extended period under Section 11A was not applicable and no penalty was imposable under Section 11AC.

The appellant's arguments included the submission that the products in dispute were intravenous fluids, supported by the application for licensing and subsequent clarifications. They also cited previous orders granting exemption to similar products. The Tribunal considered various judgments and expert opinions in support of the appellant's claim for exemption.

On the other hand, the Revenue's case was based on expert opinions stating that the products were not intravenous fluids for sugar, electrolyte, or fluid replenishment. They also highlighted differences in licensing requirements for Large Volume Parenterals (LVPs) and Small Volume Parenterals.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. They noted that the products had been previously granted exemption and that the amendment to the heading was clarificatory in nature. The Tribunal also emphasized the technical aspects of intravenous fluids and expert opinions supporting the classification of the products in question as intravenous fluids.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the products were eligible for exemption as claimed by the appellants, allowing their appeals and rejecting those filed by the Revenue. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.