Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2004 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (5) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURTWhether the appellant had wrongly availed of the benefit of the Notification No. 31/88, dated 1-3-1988? Held that:- In the present cases, we will have to consider the expression "bulk drug" as specified under First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. In Explanation after the Table in the Notification No. 31/88-C.E. dated 1-3-1988 it is clearly set out that the expression "bulk drugs" shall have the same meaning assigned to it in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. It is clear that substance has to be used as such, or as an ingredient in any formulation in terms of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. Hence, expression "formulation" is only with reference to a medicine processed out of bulk drug. Therefore, when the ingredient used by the appellant, namely, Menthol IP, in the manufacture of tooth paste, powder and shaving cream is not in the use of any formulation which is a medicine processed out of, or containing one or more bulk drugs, the view taken by the Tribunal that assessee are not entitled for the benefit of Notification cannot be assailed. However, so far as the application of Section 11 for the purpose of levy of penalty is concerned, it is not clear as to whether the law is absolutely clear on the matter or not and the authorities also had to issue clarifications from time to time. In the circumstances, we think, invoking of Section 11A is not called for and levy of penalty in the present case would not be appropriate and the application of extended period of limitation is not justified. The order of the Tribunal is modified to this extent. The appeal is partly allowed.
|