1998 (12) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 48/77 dated 1-4-1977 is available to the P or P medicine manufactured by the respondents for their loan licencee. 2.  Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR, submitted that the explanation (a) to notification provided that if the manufacturer is a com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ification, no concession can be given by the respondents. 3. Shri T. Vishwanathan, ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that once the Gujarat High Court has held explanation (a) to be ultra vires of Constitution in Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. Union of India, the condition of the notification cannot be made applicable at all. Regarding the issue of a question of manufacture .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore it cannot be said such an object will be better served by dividing the manufacturer of medicine between wholly indigenous company and the companies having foreign element in them. The Gujarat High Court therefore observed that the clause (a) of the explanation does not have any rational nexus with the objective which the notification seeks to serve and held clause (a) to be ultra vires of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X