2005 (8) TMI 126 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim of exemption qua Roxythromycin and Nimesulide under Notification No. 8/96-C.E.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a drug manufacturer, claimed exemption for Roxythromycin and Nimesulide under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted exemption for Nimesulide but rejected the claim for Roxythromycin. The rejection was based on Roxythromycin not being listed in any Indian or official pharmacopoeia. However, the drug was listed in Martindale Pharmacopoeia, the official pharmacopoeia of Great Britain, which was not considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner submitted an extract from Martindale Pharmacopoeia as evidence. The respondent authorities sought clarification on the documents, but the Court proceeded with the case based on the petitioner's submission.

The Court found that the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner were overlooked by the Tribunal, constituting an apparent error. Despite the reason for the oversight not being discussed, the Court deemed it necessary for justice to restore the appeal concerning the claim of Roxythromycin back to the Tribunal. The Court quashed the previous orders and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal solely on the issue of Roxythromycin exemption, providing both parties with a fair hearing opportunity.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition to the extent of restoring the appeal to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the Roxythromycin exemption claim. The previous orders were set aside, and the Tribunal was instructed to conduct a fresh hearing on this specific issue, ensuring fairness to both parties. No costs were awarded in this matter.