9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order No. 152/99 (HI) C.E., dated 2-11-1999 while in the case of CCE v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., the Order No. 154/99 (HI) C.E. was passed on 10-11-1999. In both the cases, the issue is common pertaining to eligibility of Notification No. 8/96, dated 23-7-96 which grants partial concessional rate with regard to drugs manufactured under Drugs Cosmetics Act and the same having been incorporated in Indian Pharmacopoeia or pharmacopoeia of any other country. The Commissioner in the impugned order noted that the products are manufactured in terms of Martindale The Extra Pharmacopoeia (31st Edition) published by the London Royal Pharmaceutical Society, 1996. He also noted that the mention of the drugs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that the parawise comments from the Commissioner has also been filed wherein large number of judgments of the Courts have been cited seeking condonation of delay. It has been pointed out that the reasons given for revised decision is based on the Board's circular which is binding on the authorities and is now well established in various judgments cited in parawise comments that Board's circulars are binding and hence seeks for condonation of delay. Ld. SDR also points out that respondents objection is not sustainable as they have relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Tata Yodogawa - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) and that of CC v. Jagran Micro Motors Ltd. as in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 601 (Trib.) which is also not applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the evidence and the mention of the item in various pharmacopoeias. He points out that changed decision taken after a considerable period of time cannot be a cause for condoning the delay as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Tata Yodogawa as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739. Further, inordinate delay is not the cause for condoning the delay as held by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 61. Ld. Advocate also submits that this very Commissioner had filed appeals within time in respect of CCE, Hyderabad v. Hetero Drugs Ltd. in E/538/2000 along with stay application in E/Stay/277/2000. Therefore, the reason now advanced that the technical section was not aware of Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y clear and admits of no ambiguity. The Board feels that making such routine reference indicates unwillingness and reluctance to take decision which is not expected from administrative Commissioners. It is hoped that in future reference to the Board should not be made on routine matters, which can be decided at your level. 8. A plain reading of this para would indicate that this letter of Board is not a circular or clarification which is covered in the decisions relied upon in the parawise comments. This letter only indicates the state of affairs in the Commissionerate and we would not like to comment any further on this. The Commissioner has relied on the case of CC v. Jagran Micro Motors Ltd. - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 601 (Trib.) wherein dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
