Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2004 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (12) TMI 89 - SC - Central ExciseTaking of exemption benefit under the notification No. 234/86 in respect of the quantum of bulk drugs cleared to consumers other than the pharmaceutical concerns. Held that:- The words "normal use" indicate the possible use whereas the expression "used as such" indicates the actual use. The certificates issued by the Drugs Controller, quoted above, shows that they did not deal with uses other than "normal uses" of such bulk drugs. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit of the exemption was available only to those drugs which went into the stream of diagnosis, treatment etc. and not to the use of any other profit making activity. In the circumstances, on the question of applicability of the notification, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned decision of the Tribunal. As the demands raised by the department in the impugned three show cause notices were time-barred. The first show cause notice was dated 30-12-1987. It was in respect of period 1-4-1986 to 30-11-1986. The second show cause notice was dated 6-4-1988. Under the said notice, the department has demanded duty for the period 1-3-1984 to 28-2-1986. The last show cause notice was dated 20-6-1988, for the period 1-4-1986 to 30-4-1987. Therefore, section 11A(1) was not applicable. We may mention that in the present case, we have come to the conclusion that there was no wilful suppression of facts on the part of the appellant as the appellant had filed the gate passes, invoices and monthly returns, which were all duly approved by the department from time to time. The invoices, gate passes and the monthly returns indicated the names of the consignees from which it was possible for the department to infer sale of sorbitol solution to non-pharmaceutical companies and yet no steps were taken by the department to raise the demand in time and, therefore, we hold that there was no wilful suppression of material facts for invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1). Although on merits the department succeeds, these appeals need to be allowed as the impugned show cause notices-cum-demands were time barred and as no case is made out by the department for invocation of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act.
|