9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s jurisdiction and therefore it was the duty of the Tribunal to get the said product examined and verified by the expert authority who can give definite finding about this product that as to whether the 'Chloramphenicol' as mentioned in the Notification dated 31.03.1992 is exempted - The trade tax tribunal is duty bound to examine the products of the revisionist-applicant and give definite finding with regard to 'Chloramphenicol' product is liable for exemption or not. The matter is remanded back to the Commercial Trade Tax Tribunal, who will reexamine the products of the revisionist-applicant - revision allowed by way of remand. - Trade Tax Revision No. 113 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2019 - Alok Mathur, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes shown in the Schedule brand named as 'PARAXIN 250', which contains salt as 'Chloramphenicol' was liable to be exempted under Section 4 (a) of the U.P. Sales (Trade) Tax Act, 1948. The Assessing Authority in its order dated 30th May, 2006 rejected the contentions of the revisionist on the ground that he was unable to come to the conclusion as to whether the medicines sold by the revisionist-applicant was 'Chloramphenicol' as mentioned in the Scheduled provided in the Notification dated 31.03.1992. He has stated that no material or any information was provided by the revisionist-applicant, which could indicates that the medicines sold by the revisionist-applicant contained 'Chloramphenicol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the First Appellate Authority and the Commercial Trade Tribunal, it is apparent that it could not be verified or confirmed whether the products, which sold in the brand name of 'PARAXIN 250' , contains 'Chloramphenicol' or not. It would be difficult for this Court to come to the conclusion in the revisional jurisdiction that whether the products of the revisionist-applicant would be liable to be exempted under the said notification dated 31st March, 1992 or not ? In light of the aforesaid the following questions of law were framed by this Court : 1. Whether the medicines sold by the revisionist as CNF Agent is the Generic Salt Chloramphenicol which is exempt under the notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empted as per the Notification dated 31.03.1992. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it is observed that the Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the Revisionist-applicant only on the ground that there was no sufficient material before them to determine whether the product 'Paraxin' contains 'Chloramphenicol or not. Before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, the revisionist-applicant has produced the material on the basis of which the composition of the product could be examined, but the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction and therefore it was the duty of the Tribunal to get the said product examined and verified by the expert authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
