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 a bulk drug is entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 8/96-C.E. when it conforms to standards specified in the Second Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 even if it is not listed in a pharmacopoeia.
Analysis: The notification defined bulk drugs as pharmaceutical, chemical, biological or plant products conforming to pharmacopoeial standards or other standards specified in the Second Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The departmental clarification also accepted that the notification covered products meeting either category of standards. The product in question had been permitted for manufacture by the drug control authorities on the basis that it satisfied the relevant standards, and therefore the refusal of the concessional rate merely because it was not then found in a pharmacopoeia was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The product qualified as a bulk drug for the purposes of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and the denial of concessional duty was unjustified, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the exemption benefit was upheld on the basis that compliance with the prescribed statutory standards was sufficient for concessional treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification defines bulk drugs by reference to pharmacopoeial or other prescribed standards, eligibility cannot be denied merely because the product is not listed in a pharmacopoeia if it satisfies the alternative statutory standards.