TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules formulations with </h1> <h3>Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Govind Ruia Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise, The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner of State Excise</h3> Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Govind Ruia Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise, The State of Maharashtra, The Commissioner of ... Issues:Classification of formulations containing less than 135 mgs of Dextropropoxyphene as 'Narcotic Drug' or 'Narcotic' under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and liability to State Excise Duty.Analysis:The petition raised the issue of whether formulations containing less than 135 mgs of Dextropropoxyphene could be classified as 'Narcotic Drug' or 'Narcotic' under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, and thus be liable to State Excise Duty. The petitioners, a pharmaceutical company, manufactured formulations containing 65 mgs of Dextropropoxyphene, which they argued fell under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and not the M & TP Act. The dispute arose when the State Excise Department seized the formulations, alleging evasion of State Excise Duty. The petitioners contended that their formulations were not covered by the definition of Narcotic under the M & TP Act due to containing less than 135 mgs of Dextropropoxyphene.The court referred to a previous judgment in USV Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that formulations with Dextropropoxyphene base per dosage unit not exceeding 135 mg were excluded from classification as a narcotic drug. The court emphasized the importance of the quantity of Dextropropoxyphene in determining the classification. It distinguished a Supreme Court judgment related to alcohol content in medicines, stating that in this case, the quantity of Dextropropoxyphene was the critical factor for classification. The court reiterated that formulations with less than 135 mgs of Dextropropoxyphene were not to be considered as containing a narcotic drug or narcotic under the M & TP Act.Consequently, the court held that the subject formulations containing 65 mgs of Dextropropoxyphene were excluded from classification as a Narcotic Drug under the M & TP Act. The demand for State Excise Duty was deemed untenable, and the impugned demand notices were quashed. The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioners costs for the loss incurred due to the wrongful seizure of the formulations. The petitioners were allowed to withdraw the amount deposited with the Registry, along with any accrued interest, as per the interim order.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of formulations with Dextropropoxyphene content below 135 mgs, emphasizing the specific quantity threshold for determining the Narcotic classification under the M & TP Act. The court's decision favored the petitioners, highlighting the importance of accurate interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions in excise duty matters.
TaxTMI 