Ingredient-specific exemption and provisional assessment limits: chemically different substitutes are excluded, and normal limitation applies absent statutory provisional assessment.

A fiscal exemption confined to patent or proprietary medicines containing specified ingredients did not cover Amegyl Suspension because it contained Metronidazole Benzoate, a chemically different substitute for the scheduled ingredient Metronidazole, so the exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. was unavailable. On limitation, the assessments were not shown to be provisional in the statutory sense under Rule 9-B, and the record did not justify the extended period under Section 11-A; the normal six-month limitation therefore applied, leaving the demand time-barred beyond that period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Amegyl Suspension was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. when it contained Metronidazole Benzoate instead of Metronidazole; (ii) Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation because the assessments were not shown to be provisional under Rule 9-B and no grounds existed for applying the extended limitation period under Section 11-A.

Issue (i): Whether Amegyl Suspension was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. when it contained Metronidazole Benzoate instead of Metronidazole.

Analysis: The notification exempted patent or proprietary medicines containing ingredients specified in the schedule. The scheduled ingredient was Metronidazole, whereas the product contained Metronidazole Benzoate as an active ingredient. The chemical formula and molecular weight of the two substances were different, and the record showed that Metronidazole Benzoate was a substitute for Metronidazole rather than the same ingredient. The notification did not extend to substitutes merely because they produced similar therapeutic effects.

Conclusion: The product was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. on this ground, and the finding was in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation because the assessments were not shown to be provisional under Rule 9-B and no grounds existed for applying the extended limitation period under Section 11-A.

Analysis: The record did not show that the relevant assessments were made provisionally in the statutory sense. The classification lists and RT-12 returns were largely approved without any clear provisional endorsement, the prescribed formalities for provisional assessment were not established, and the Department did not produce a disclosed test report. The show cause notice also did not allege suppression or misstatement to justify the longer period. On the facts, the demand could not be treated as covered by provisional assessment, and the limitation applicable was six months under Section 11-A.

Conclusion: The demand was barred beyond six months, and the limitation issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, but the duty demand could survive only for the limited period permissible under the normal limitation rule, so the appeal succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal exemption confined to specifically named ingredients cannot be extended to a chemically different substitute merely because it has similar therapeutic effect, and where provisional assessment is not established in the statutory manner, the normal limitation under Section 11-A applies.

---