1993 (1) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notification No. 116/69 dated 3rd May, 1969. 2.By the said Notification No. 116/69 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted patent or proprietary medicines falling under Item No. 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and containing one or more of the ingredients specified in the Schedule thereto annexed, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The material part of the said Notification which falls for consideration, reads thus :- "Nothing contained in paragraph 1 shall apply to any medicine which contains any ingredient not specified in the said Schedule unless the ingredients in the medicine are p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 116/69. The Respondents contend that mere presence of Calcium Carbonate and Magnesium Carbonate in the composition irrespective of the quantity and regardless of whether it was active as an antacid or not, takes the tablet outside the scope of the said Notification. 4.The point involved does not seem to be any more res-integrata. In the case of M/s. May Baker (India) Limited and another v. Union of India [1989 (43) E.L.T. 411 (Bom.)] (Writ Petition No. 2667 of 1982 decided on 21st June, 1989 by the learned Single Judge of this Court), a similar contention of the Respondents in the matter of Flagyl tablets, has been rejected and the said Judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 1149 of 1989 decid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the formulation. 7.The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that where the statute itself provides the Petitioners with an efficacious alternate remedy, it is not for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ignoring as it were, the complete statutory machinery. We, however, cannot over-look the fact that this petition filed in 1983 has been entertained by this Court and given a hearing on merit on its entirely to the parties. In the facts of the case, it would now be too late in the day to ask the Petitioners to avail of the alternate statutory remedy after lapse of about ten years. 8.In the circumstances, we hold that 'Amezole Tablets' were exempted under the said Notificati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X