9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basic dispute was whether three products Diarnil tablets, Rison capsules and Sorogyl DF tablets were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986 ld. Collector (Appeals) had allowed the benefit to the appellants in the case of Rison Capsules (but denied in respect of the other two), the department is aggrieved with the order of the Collector in so far as it relates to the Rison Capsules. It was his submission that undisputedly these tablets had three ingredients Rifampicin, Isoniazide and Vitamin B-6. It was the department s contention and undisputed fact that none of these three ingredients were included in the annexure to the notification which lists the ingredients covered by the exemption notifications. The Collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified in the Annexure hereto appended, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule. 2. Nothing contained in paragraph 1 shall apply to any medicament which contains any ingredients not specified in the said Annexure unless the ingredients in the medicament are pharmaceutical necessities such as diluents, disintegration agents, moistening agents, lubricants, buffering agents, stabilisers and preservatives : Provided that such pharmaceutical necessities are therapeutically inert and do not interfere with the therapeutic or prophylactic activity of the ingredient or ingredients specified in the said Annexure. ANNEXURE 1. Prothionamide 2. Glybenclamide 3. Chlorpropamide 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations of the ld. Collector regarding pharmaceutical necessity. But in the circumstances, of the case, we are not called upon to pronounce upon the ld. Collector s order in this respect. Since not even one of the specified ingredient is present, we accept the department s contention that this capsule is not covered by the notification. In so far as the question of time bar is concerned, we have got an interesting situation, inasmuch as, if the assessment was final as claimed by the appellants they were required to file an appeal, if they were aggrieved, within three months of such finalisation; on the other hand, if the assessment was provisional (as claimed by the department) then the respondents had another chance by way of appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
