2018 (3) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ug is invariably consist of other ingredients which is not in the form of excipient. Merely by adding the excipient, the medicine which has character of basic drug does not get altered. Therefore, only by adding excipient the exemption cannot be denied. From the packing of the product it can be seen that the product sold is Natural Micronised Progesterone. Therefore even though it contains various other excipients, the medicine is clearly covered under Sr. No.58 of the list 3 of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. Therefore it is eligible for exemption N/N. 4/2006-CE. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) - for the Appellant Ms. Manasi Patil, A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notification 4/2006-CE. 3. Ms. Mansi Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents support the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration, we find that as per the exemption entry the drug and medicine both are exempted. Drug contains only one ingredient i.e. basic drug whereas any medicine which is manufactured out of a drug is invariably consist of other ingredients which is not in the form of excipient. Merely by adding the excipient, the medicine which has character of basic drug does not get altered. Therefore, only by adding excipient the exemption cannot be denied. In the facts of the present case, we observe that the product is sold in the name of "Sugest". 5. From the above packing of the product it can be seen that the produ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... product 'Micronised Progesterone' is a blended one. He has also failed to notice the order issued by the officer of his own Commissionerate in the appellant's own case. He has not only proceeded on wrong presumption but also imposed equal penalty without giving any reasons as to how the appellant attracts equal penalty. The imposition of equal penalty by the Dy. Commissioner without adducing any reasons clearly shows that the power can be misused against the voiceless assessees. Such action is not in the interest of the Revenue." 6. On reading of the above finding, we are completely in agreement with the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the revenues appeal. (Pronounced in Court on 31/1/18)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X