9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the department's appeal before him as unsustainable. The Revenue is in appeal against this order. 2. Briefly the facts are that the respondents claimed exemption in respect of their products (a) Terramycin Opt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt bulk drugs. He held that the proper authority to categorise the drugs into Ist or IInd Schedule is the Government under para 27 of DPCO 1987. He also held that on reclassification of goods the Department can demand duty only prospectively. 4. The Revenue contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to examine the admissibility of the exemption in the light of the ingredients (tetracycl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation is reviewed by the Department; that in the present case, the Department can issue a demand under Section 11A for past period of six months. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Notification 29/88 exempts all formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the first schedule to the DPCO either individually or in combination with other bulk drugs specified in the said schedule exclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ophthalmological use even if they contain tetracycline and hydrocortisone are eligible for the benefit of notification. The Commissioner's observation that the Department can demand duty only prospectively when classification of goods is revised is however rejected as this observation is not based on good law. 7. The net result, however, is that the appeal of the Revenue fails as we conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
