TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therapeutic as well as replenishment purposes. Apparently, both are for different medical purposes and application. They are not interchangeable - in M/s Venus Remedies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2011 (8) TMI 688 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], it was held that exemption shall not be available in case Schedule ‘H' drugs are added in I.V. Fluids. The impugned orders with reference to eligibility of the respondents for the exemption set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - E/00495/2009 & E/00496/2009 - 42939-42940/2017 - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l (Drugs) India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2004 (179) E.L. T. 259 (Tri-Mumbai). 3. Contesting the findings recorded in the impugned orders, the learned Authorised Representative elaborated the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. He submitted that the matter reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, who remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the lower authorities for examining the scope of implication of addition of Schedule 'H' drug in the I.V. Fluid for applicability of said exemption. The matter was re-decided by the lower authorities, denying the exemption to the assessees. The Tribunal upheld such denial. The matter was taken-u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this product has been specifically examined by the original authority based on the clarification issued by Drug Controller to the effect that these are also used as replenishment fluid for renal function. He submitted that there is no ground to deny the exemption of the product in view of specific factual finding recorded by the original authority. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The claim for exemption under Sl.No.56 of Notification No.6/2002-CE, is in dispute. A plain reading of SI.no.56 makes it clear that I.V. Fluids, which are used for Sugar, Electrolyte or Fluid replenishment alone are eligible for exemption. The claim of the respondents that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition of any of the above said items? Once, any of those items is added in the intravenous fluids, it becomes Schedule H drug, as per the provisions of the 1945 Act and statutory warning is to be inscribed thereon. Addition of those items not only change the medicaments value of the intravenous fluids but it is also a factor for increasing the price on the ground that it is Schedule 'H' drug. Under the previous notification, all intravenous fluids were exempted from excise duty but by way of Notification dated 1-3-2001, a condition was imposed and it specifically speaks of intravenous fluids, which is used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. The medicaments of intravenous fluid will certainly make the use thereof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and by virtue of which it becomes Schedule it no more falls in Item No.47A of the notification for being exempted from excise duty. 8. In view of the categorical findings of the High Court as above, upholding the decision of the Tribunal on this issue, we find no justification on merit, in the findings of the impugned orders. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders with reference to eligibility of the respondents for the exemption and allow the appeals filed by the Revenue. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the duty liability is confirmed against the respondents, their eligibility to Cenvat credit on inputs, which were already extended by original authority, may be affirmed. We find that the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
