Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the product, a terramycin injection containing lidocaine, remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 29/88-C.E. as a single ingredient formulation despite the presence of lidocaine.
Analysis: The product was found to contain oxytetracycline with lidocaine used only as an anaesthetic to reduce pain during administration. The issue was treated as covered by the Larger Bench view that lidocaine, when added as a pharmaceutical necessity and not for therapeutic effect, does not defeat the benefit of the exemption. The material relied on showed that the notification was concerned with the therapeutic character of the ingredient and that lidocaine did not interfere with the therapeutic activity of oxytetracycline. The technical literature and the departmental test reports supported the conclusion that lidocaine was used as a permissible additive in such injections.
Conclusion: The product was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The classification dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee, and the exemption could not be denied on the ground that lidocaine was present in the formulation.
Ratio Decidendi: An additive used only as a pharmaceutical necessity and not for therapeutic effect does not negate eligibility for an exemption meant for a single ingredient formulation.