9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Exemption claim under Notification No. 80/80 for patent and proprietary medicines. 2. Allegation of deliberate suppression of clearance value of pharmacopeal medicines. 3. Imposition of penalty and demand of duty. 4. Interpretation of declaration requirements under Notification No. 2/81. 5. Argument regarding ambiguity in treating pharmacopeal medicines as excisable goods. 6. Evidence of deliberate suppression of facts for duty evasion. 7. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions in similar cases. 8. Approval of pharmacopeal medicine labels by the Department. Analysis: 1. The case involves the appellants manufacturing patent and proprietary (P&P) medicines and pharmacopeal medicines, seeking exemption under Notification No. 80/80 for P&P medicines. The department alleged deliberate suppression of pharmacopeal medicine clearance value, leading to duty evasion. 2. The department imposed a penalty and demanded duty for the alleged evasion during the financial years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The show cause notice was issued on 9.9.1983, based on the discrepancy in the declaration of clearance values. 3. The advocate for the appellants conceded the error in not including pharmacopeal medicines in the declaration under Notification No. 2/81 but argued against deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, citing uncertainty regarding the excisability of pharmacopeal medicines. 4. The tribunal analyzed the declaration requirements under Notification No. 2/81, emphasizing the need for a full description of manufactured goods without scope for ambiguity. The argument that pharmacopeal medicines were treated as P&P medicines was deemed unsubstantiated. 5. The advocate's reliance on previous tribunal decisions for lack of positive evidence of deliberate suppression was countered by the department, highlighting the difference in facts. The approval of medicine labels did not absolve the appellants of the duty to accurately declare clearance values. 6. The tribunal rejected the appeal, concluding that the appellants' failure to correctly declare the production of medicines constituted deliberate suppression of facts to evade duty. The tribunal applied principles from previous court decisions to uphold the penalty and duty demand. 7. The tribunal emphasized that the appellants' misdeclaration distinguished this case from previous decisions cited by the advocate, indicating a deliberate act of suppression. The lack of positive evidence of intent does not preclude invoking penalties for duty evasion. 8. Approval of pharmacopeal medicine labels did not negate the obligation to accurately declare clearance values, as the responsibility lies with the appellants to provide complete and accurate information for duty assessment.
|
