TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving L.4 licence No. PPM/1/73 for the manufacture of Patent or Proprietary Medicines falling under Tarif Item No. 14 E of the Central Excise Tariff. Right from the inception, for obvious reasons, the manufacturers of medicines have been allowed duty free samples to the extent and subject, to the conditions specified in the relevant Notification. The first such Notification No. 105/61 dated 20th April, 1961 was issued almost at the same time as the imposition of the said excise duty. In April, 1977, this Notification was replaced by Notification No. 48/77-C.E., dated 1st April, 1977. Like earlier Notifications, this Notification as well allowed clinical samples without payment of duty (upto certain specified limit) and subject to certain conditions. The assessee had been taking the benefit of the said Notification. The learned Asstt. Collector of Central Excise was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of duty free clearance of clinical samples as E. Merck India (P) Ltd. had interest in a foreign company and a foreigner or a foreign company has interest in the said E. Merck India (P) Ltd. The learned Asstt. Collector had issued show cause notice desiring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y conceded that the pendency of SLP will not deprive the respondent of the benefit of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. He has however agreed that even if it is accepted that the Appellant is to get the benefit of the Notification No. 48/77-C.E. dated 1-4-1977, the Respondent has to establish that he complied with the terms of the said notification. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 5. In reply, Shri R.J. Majra, the learned Advocate has pleaded that the Revenue cannot expand the contents of the show cause notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has pleaded that the said Review proceedings were started only on the ground that the judgment passed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. Union of India and another was the subject matter of SLP, and the Appellate Collector had overlooked the same. He has referred to a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2466, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that where a subordinate Court or a Tribunal refused to follow a High Court decision, where a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earances in any month are limited to a quantity not exceeding four per cent by value of the total duty paid clearances during the preceding month of all types of patent or proprietary medicines (ii) samples are intended for free supply to hospitals, nursing homes or medical practitioners ; and (iii) the samples are packed in a form distinctly different from regular trade packing and each smallest packing is clearly and conspicuously marked physician s samples not to be sold; Provided further in respect of a patent or proprietary medicine aforesaid, the exemption under this notification will be available only for a period of three years from the date of first clearance of the said medicine from any factory of a manufacturer. Explanation :-In this notification manufacturer means : (a) where it is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); a company- (i) which does not hold any share in the capital of any foreign company; and (ii) no part of the capital of which is held by a foreigner or a foreign company ; (b) where it is a firm- (i) the firm has no interest in any foreign firm; and (ii) no interest in the firm is held by a foreigner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior court s disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rules of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law. In the said judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court in para 14 had discussed an earlier judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
