1997 (11) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 regarding excise duty exemption for bulk drugs.
2. Allegation of contravention of Central Excise Rules by the appellants.
3. Applicability of the definition of 'bulk drug' and 'formulation' from the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987.
4. Dispute over the use of menthol I.P. by the appellants in relation to the benefit of the Notification.
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation by the Collector, Central Excise.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged an order-in-original by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, denying them the benefit of Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988, and imposing a duty demand and penalty for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The dispute centered around the appellants' clearance of menthol I.P. to manufacturers not using it as a bulk drug formulation under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987. The appellants argued that the end-use of menthol I.P. should not affect their eligibility under the Notification, citing Tribunal precedents emphasizing intended use over actual use.

The Revenue contended that the appellants' clearance of menthol I.P. to toothpaste, powder, and shaving cream manufacturers did not qualify as a formulation under the Drug (Price Control) Order, 1987, thus justifying the denial of the Notification benefit. The Tribunal noted the specific definition of 'bulk drug' and 'formulation' under the Order, emphasizing the requirement for a substance to be used as such or as an ingredient in a formulation to qualify for the exemption.

The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including C.C.E., Ahmedabad v. Maize Products and Sha Harakchand Dharmaji v. C.C., Madras, to establish the importance of adhering to the defined criteria for benefit eligibility. The Tribunal found that the appellants' use of menthol I.P. did not align with the criteria set out in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's invocation of the extended period of limitation, noting the absence of challenges to this aspect by the appellants. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no flaws in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the denial of the Notification benefit to the appellants based on the specific criteria outlined in the relevant regulations.