9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Notification 45/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982; (b) differential duty on account of wrong availment of exemption under Notification 85/85-C.E., dated 1-3-1985 for the period of six months from 11-12-1985; (c) duty leviable on quantity of medicines cleared against invoices marked A from July, 1983 to the date of detection; (d) imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q. 2. The first question that has arisen is whether Neomycin Sulphate manufactured by the appellants which bears a certain symbol on its labels should be regarded as Patent Proprietary Medicine under Item 14E of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. While the appellants had claimed before the adjudicating authority that the symbol printed on the labels did not at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act the mischief of the Explanation in question because the words Bengal Chemicals" represented the name of the manufacturer. On the contrary, the learned SDR Smt. Ananya Ray referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ramsey Pharma Private Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise [1983 (12) E.L.T. 78] in which it was held by the High Court that calligraphic types used for the name Ramsey as distinct from the ordinary block letters together with the geometrical design of the circle in which the word Ramsey is printed both vertically and horizontally constituted a distinctive design so as to distinguish the medicines manufactured by the petitioners from the medicines manufactured by others. Thus, the criterion la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and concluded that the goods were non-duty paid. It is necessary for the adjudicating authority to have examined this plea even though it was made later in reply to the show cause notice and was contrary to what had been stated at the time of visit of the departmental authorities to the manufacturing premises of the appellants. Similarly, the other plea taken by the appellants before the adjudicating authority as well as before us was that certain clearances were made to the Sales Office against Gate Passes and these should be excluded from the calculation of the amount of duty demandable from the appellants. The third plea was that besides eligibility to exemption under Notification 45/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982, the appellants were also en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
