Exemption for medicine containing Chloramphenicol required expert verification of product composition before deciding eligibility.

Exemption for the medicine sold as 'Paraxin' turned on proof that it matched the scheduled product containing Chloramphenicol under the notification dated 31.03.1992. The authorities had rejected the claim because the available material did not establish the product's composition, while the Tribunal had not independently examined the medicine or obtained expert verification. On this record, the factual question could not be conclusively resolved without expert assistance, so the matter required fresh determination. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration with appropriate expert examination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the medicine sold under the brand name 'Paraxin' was entitled to exemption under the notification dated 31.03.1992 on the basis that it contained Chloramphenicol, and whether the Tribunal was required to have the product examined by an expert before deciding the claim.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification depended upon proof that the product answered the description of the scheduled medicine containing Chloramphenicol. The authorities below rejected the claim because the material then available did not establish the composition of the product. The revisionist asserted before the Tribunal that wrapper material and other documents were available, but the Tribunal did not independently examine the product or obtain expert verification. In such circumstances, the factual question whether the medicine contained Chloramphenicol could not be conclusively answered on the existing record, and the Tribunal was bound to secure a definite finding through appropriate expert examination.

Conclusion: The claim to exemption was not finally determined on merits and the matter required fresh examination by the Tribunal with expert assistance. The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded.

---