2004 (1) TMI 264 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to claim exemption under Notification No. 8/96 and rate of duty @ 10% ad valorem for specific bulk drugs
- Official status of Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia as a Pharmacopoeia
- Interpretation of Trade Notice No. 24/95 regarding concessional rate of duty at 10% ad valorem
- Applicability of previous concessions under Notification No. 6/94-C.E. to Notification No. 8/96-C.E.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was the entitlement of the respondent to claim exemption under Notification No. 8/96 and the rate of duty @ 10% ad valorem for specific bulk drugs. The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the claim, citing that the standards followed by the assessee, Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia, were not from an official Pharmacopoeia. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia, published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, U.K., was indeed an official Pharmacopoeia. This decision was further supported by the fact that the publication was recognized and regulated by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, establishing its official status.

2. The controversy surrounding the official status of Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia was a key point of contention. The Revenue argued that only the British Pharmacopoeia held official status, not Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia. However, upon examination of the materials presented, it was established that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responsible for publishing Martindale, held significant regulatory functions and was recognized as an official body. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia could be considered an official Pharmacopoeia of Great Britain.

3. Another crucial issue addressed was the interpretation of Trade Notice No. 24/95 concerning the concessional rate of duty at 10% ad valorem. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly interpreted the Explanatory Note of the Trade Notice to mean that the concessional rate applied to the products in question even after a change in the definition of 'Bulk Drugs'. This interpretation was based on the continuity of concessions provided under different notifications, ultimately benefiting the assessee.

4. The applicability of previous concessions under Notification No. 6/94-C.E. to the current scenario under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. was also a point of consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that since the definition of 'Bulk Drugs' remained the same in both notifications, the assessee was entitled to continue receiving the concessional rate at 10% ad valorem. This decision was upheld by the Tribunal, emphasizing the continuity of benefits for the assessee.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, highlighting that the arguments raised by the Revenue regarding the status of Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia were not substantiated. Additionally, the Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous decision cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the circumstances and legal implications were distinct, further solidifying the decision in favor of the respondent.