1996 (7) TMI 372 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of exemption under Notification Nos. 29/88, 30/88, and 141/89 for the medicine Coxina-3.
2. Interpretation of the formulations covered under the notifications.
3. Absence of respondents and request for adjournment.
4. Applicability of the notifications based on the ingredients of the formulation.

Analysis:

The appeal addressed the eligibility of exemption under Notification Nos. 29/88, 30/88, and 141/89 for the medicine Coxina-3, which contains rifampicin, isoniazid, and pyrazinamide. The lower authority initially ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that Coxina-3 qualifies for exemption under the mentioned notifications as it contains the bulk drugs specified. The lower authority did not seek expert opinion to challenge the formulation's classification, leading to the acceptance of the appellants' claim for exemption under the notifications.

The issue in the appeal primarily focused on the interpretation of the formulations covered under the notifications. Each notification outlined specific criteria for exemption based on the ingredients present in the formulations. The absence of the respondents during the proceedings and their casual request for adjournment were noted, leading to the denial of the adjournment request by the tribunal.

The learned DR argued that Coxina-3 did not qualify for exemption under the notifications due to the presence of pyrazinamide, which was not covered under the specific bulk drugs listed in the notifications. The DR emphasized that the lower authority's decision to grant exemption was erroneous as the formulation contained therapeutic agents beyond the scope of the notifications. The tribunal agreed with the DR's arguments, concluding that the presence of pyrazinamide in Coxina-3 rendered it ineligible for exemption under the notifications.

In the final analysis, the tribunal overturned the lower authority's decision and ruled in favor of the revenue, stating that Coxina-3, containing rifampicin, isoniazid, and pyrazinamide, did not meet the criteria for exemption under Notification Nos. 29/88, 30/88, and 141/89. The tribunal emphasized that the formulations covered by the notifications should not contain therapeutic agents beyond the specified criteria, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the revenue's position.