9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to exemption contained in Notification 8/96 with regard to roxithromycin that it manufactured and cleared during the period 1-9-1996 to 28-2-1997. In the show cause notice issued to it on 1-10-2001 the duty was alleged to be short paid on the ground that the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the earlier decision to the facts before us. He however contends that the extended period of limitation will not be available. The ground involved in the notice for invoking the extended period of limitation is that the appellant had suppressed from the department the fact that roxithromycin did not conform to pharmacopoeial or other standards. He points out that in the classification list that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pharmacopoeial standard. 4. The departmental representative contends that the exemption that would be applicable to the goods during the relevant period is contained in Notification 8/96. The classification list that the appellant referred to only mentions Notification 8/95. Therefore, there has been suppression in material facts. 5. We are not able to accept this contention. No doubt, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave noticed alleged suppression on the ground of absence of pharmacopoeial standards for roxithromycin. We have already recorded the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard and we find it to be acceptable. If out of the four products of which the exemption was claimed, three were indicated to be of pharmacopoeial standards, and there was no such indication for the fourth, it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
