1998 (10) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Medicine - Exemption availed under Notification No. 245/83-C.E. whether a bar against claiming exemption under Notification No. 45/82-C.E.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 45/82 and Notification No. 245/83 regarding excise duty exemption for medicaments.
- Whether the benefit under Notification No. 45/82 can be availed if the appellants had already availed the benefit under Notification No. 245/83.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the question of whether the benefit of Notification No. 45/82 could be availed if the appellants had already claimed the benefit under Notification No. 245/83. The appellants manufactured medicaments and initially claimed the benefit under Notification No. 245/83. The authorities directed them to pay duty as per Notification No. 245/83, restricting them from availing benefits under any other notification simultaneously.

2. The appellants argued that they sell most of their products to government bodies at prices lower than the retail price specified under DPCO, making them eligible for exemption under Notification No. 45/82. They contended that the conditions of Notification No. 245/83 were not fully satisfied for all their sales, and hence, they should be allowed to claim benefits under both notifications.

3. The Department argued that the appellants, having initially availed benefits under Notification No. 245/83, were restricted from claiming benefits under any other notification simultaneously, as per the proviso (iii) of Notification No. 245/83. The Department contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 45/82 to the appellants.

4. The Tribunal analyzed both Notification No. 45/82 and Notification No. 245/83. It noted that Notification No. 45/82 did not contain any restriction on availing benefits under other notifications. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that if a taxpayer meets the conditions of an exemption, they should not be denied its benefit based on other intentions. The Tribunal also cited precedents where similar notifications were considered independent of each other, allowing for separate benefits.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that since Notification No. 45/82 did not impose restrictions on availing benefits under other notifications, the appellants could claim the benefit under this notification for supplying medicines to government departments. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the clear terms of the exemptions and the absence of any specified restriction in Notification No. 45/82.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the interpretation of the legal provisions and the application of precedents to determine the eligibility of the appellants for excise duty exemptions under different notifications.