9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of aforesaid observations and no evidence brought to record by the respondent - Decided in favor of revenue. - E/564/2005 - 55846/2013-EX(PB) - Dated:- 14-3-2013 - Mr. D. N. Panda and Mr. Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri M. S. Negi, DR JUDGEMENT PER: D.N.PANDA; None present for the respondent nor is there any adjournment application. 2. Present appeal of Revenue is in the second round of litigation before Tribunal against appellate order on 27.10.2004. The precise question in the appeal of Revenue is whether dextrose present in Aneroid IV was pharmaceutical necessity and whether that was active and not interfering with the process to manufacture of final goods. 3. The issue above was first examined by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the grass root level and elaborate discussion was made in the adjudication order. Ld. Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that dextrose interferes with the therapeutic property for which exemption is not permissible. He relied on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of T.N.Dadha Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE, Madras-2003 (152) ELT 251 (SC) to support that dextrose was not prescribed in the schedule appended to the notification. So also that is neither pharmaceutical necessity nor therapeutic inert and interferes with the therapeutic or prophylactic activity. Such finding denies the exemption following para 12 of the apex Court judgement which reads as under: There can be no dispute that without any further drug Metronidazole is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate order on remand was passed on 27.10.2004. When the Tribunal in para 16 of its order dated 6.2.1990 raised doubt for examining the evidence to establish whether dextrose interferes with therapeutic or prophylactic activity of Metronidazole, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine the basic evidence and also chemical report. But allowed the appeal of the respondent following the judgement of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of May Baker India Ltd. vs. Union of India. We are not able to find any material evidence on record to notice that dextrose present in Aneroid IV was of pharmaceutical necessity and a therapeutic inert without interfering with the therapeutic or prophylactic activity. In absence of fulfilment of these two con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
