2005 (3) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ferred on the ground that the A1-Company was managed by A2 and A3 and that they have been found to have contravened Central Excise Rules as indicated in paragraph 18 of the complaint; that the complaint was filed in the year 1993-94 and the duty amount involved was said to be Rs. 29,80,530/-; that the amount of Central Excise Duty evaded by the petitioners/accused for the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94 was said to be Rs. 84,44,286/-; that along with the complaint, a memo of evidence was furnished detailing the materials that were based in order to substantiate the contentions in the complaint. 4.The first petitioner/A1 company was known as M/s. Pharma Care Pvt. Ltd. until 21-1-1991, when they obtained a Certificate of Incorporation conseq .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... njan Limited v. Collector of Central Excise) were also applied. 8.In the said Amrutanjan case, it was held that the ingredients that was used in preparation of ayurvedic medicines, even if they are used after refinement or bringing them to pharmaceutical quality, they do not become synthetic in nature. It is immaterial that the same articles bearing a different nomenclature are also known and used in allopathic system. 9.Also by relying upon the portion culled out in paragraph 26 of the Vicks Case, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sometimes 'navacharam' an ayurvedic material may be the same article as ammonium chloride and nevertheless it becomes a non-ayurvedic product. 10.Again it was submitted that simply because .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the manufacturing premises of petitioners were not the extracts derivated from the Herbs; but only directly purchased synthetics as probabilised by statements of its sellers. It is not also the case of petitioners that they extracted the Herbs and by which process gathered the synthetics contained in such Herbal plants. While such is the case, the proposition in the above case laws cannot be made applicable to the present facts. 13.Learned Government Advocate on the criminal side contended that there is no difference of opinion regarding the propositions of law so laid down. But, factually, according to the intelligence and the materials gathered thereon, what the petitioners were utilising for the purpose of manufacture of NIVARAN 90 SY .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X