1983 (8) TMI 298 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification for anti-malarial drug Camoquin as Amodiaquine or Amodiaquine Hydrochloride

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi involved the interpretation of an exemption notification for an anti-malarial drug, specifically Camoquin, as either Amodiaquine or Amodiaquine Hydrochloride. The dispute arose as the Central Excise authorities contended that only Amodiaquine, not Camoquin, should receive the exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. The crux of the issue was whether Amodiaquine Hydrochloride, present in Camoquin, could be considered synonymous with Amodiaquine for the purpose of the exemption.

The appellant, M/s. Parke Davis, argued that the Government's amendment to the notification supported their claim that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride should be exempted as it is equivalent to Amodiaquine. They presented technical evidence from various pharmacopoeias and pharmaceutical texts to establish that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride is the form in which Amodiaquine is administered and that the two terms are used interchangeably in the industry.

On the other hand, the Central Excise department contended that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride is chemically distinct from Amodiaquine as it is a salt of the latter. They emphasized the need for a strict interpretation of the exemption notification and argued that the later amendment could not have a retrospective effect to include Amodiaquine Hydrochloride under the exemption.

The Tribunal acknowledged the technical complexity of the issue, recognizing that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride is not the same as Amodiaquine from a chemical standpoint. However, they also considered the practical aspect of medical administration, noting that Amodiaquine is typically administered as Amodiaquine Hydrochloride for its therapeutic effects against malaria. The Tribunal highlighted that the active base of Amodiaquine is always administered as a hydrochloride and that no other form is known to be used for medical purposes.

In their analysis, the Tribunal concluded that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride should be entitled to the exemption as demanded by the appellant. They emphasized the importance of a strict reading of exemption notifications to prevent discrimination among qualifying articles and upheld that the exemption should apply to Amodiaquine Hydrochloride, which is the medically administered form of Amodiaquine. The Tribunal directed that assessments of the disputed goods be done accordingly, granting the exemption to Amodiaquine Hydrochloride within three months.