1984 (6) TMI 226 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 116/69 regarding concessional assessment eligibility based on product composition.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Concessional Assessment
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of a product for concessional assessment under Serial No. 14 of the schedule to Central Excise Notification No. 116/69. The product in question was an injection containing Chloramphenicol, with other ingredients like Lignocaine Hydrochloride. The appellants claimed that Chloramphenicol was the only active ingredient and that the other components were therapeutically inert, making the product eligible for concessional assessment.

Issue 2: Role of Lignocaine Hydrochloride
The Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the concessional assessment, arguing that Lignocaine Hydrochloride, a local anaesthetic in the injection, was not therapeutically inert, even though it might not affect the therapeutic efficiency of Chloramphenicol. The appellants contended that Lignocaine Hydrochloride only acted as a pain reliever and local anaesthetic, supporting their claim with a certificate from the Commissioner of Food & Drug Administration, Maharashtra State.

Issue 3: Judicial Review
The matter was appealed before the Appellate Collector, Bombay, and subsequently brought before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT NEW DELHI. Despite the absence of the appellants during the hearing, the Tribunal considered the written submissions and arguments presented, including references to scientific sources like the McGraw Hill Dictionary and the British Pharmacopoeia regarding the properties and uses of Lignocaine Hydrochloride.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Notification Criteria
The Tribunal analyzed the language of Central Excise Notification No. 116/69, emphasizing that for a product to qualify for concessional assessment, the added ingredient must fall under specific categories like diluent, preservative, or pharmaceutical necessity. It was concluded that Lignocaine Hydrochloride, acting as a local anaesthetic in the injection, did not meet the criteria specified in the notification, thereby justifying the denial of the concessional benefit.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, denying the appellants the benefit of the notification. The appeal was rejected based on the finding that Lignocaine Hydrochloride did not qualify as a component falling within the categories specified for concessional assessment. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that subsequent demands not covered in the current proceedings were not addressed in this judgment.