9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pl.)]. 2. The above petition arises under the Central Excise Act. The petitioner is the manufacturer of various types of medicines including life saving drugs and the preparations are strictly in accordance with the provisions of Drug Control Act and on the verification of the authorities at all times. 3. Today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that at the time of removal of the goods, two notifications are issued by the Central Government recognizing certain cadre as Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefits; that upto Rs. 2/- crores, they need not pay any duty for the total product; that during the relevant period, upto Rs. 30/- lakhs, they need not pay any duty concessions as prescribed in the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has come forward before this Court with the present writ petition. 5. The Respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit not only denying the allegations made on the part of the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition but would also submit that the order of the second respondent would not be restored, quashing the order of the first respondent because the second respondent noticed the words "Marketed by" "Medopharm" but failed to notice the word's Monogram and label inscribed besides the above words; that there is no bar to allow the SSI exemption to the petitioner; but the benefit claimed under Notification 1/93 for affixing the brand name of others who are not eligible for exemption is totally against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents as afore extracted would only reiterate the factual decision of the case as pleaded in the writ petition and in the counter-affidavit filed, with no law or new fact or circumstance being brought forth, and therefore, it is a case which could be decided based on the materials made available on record and while so looking into those materials in the context of the pleadings of the case, it is an admitted case on the part of the petitioner that two notifications have been issued by the Central Government recognizing certain cadre as Small Scale Industry (SSI); that upto Rs. 2/- crores they need not pay any duty for the total product; that during the relevant period upto Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , without permitting the petitioner to take shelter under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts and Rules and since the Central Excise Act and Rules clearly indicate, that if any monogram or label is affixed on the product owned by others, then the benefit of SSI exemption must be denied and on such grounds would pray to dismiss the above writ petition. 8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on records and upon hearing learned counsel for both, this Court is able to find that a strong case has been put up on the part of the respondents to the effect that the second respondent has committed factual errors having only noticed the words "Marketed by" and "Medopharm" but failing to notice the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
