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 xylidine and diethylamine, when actually used in the manufacture of anesthetics, qualified as drug intermediates entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., and whether the exemption could be denied on the basis of predominant use or exclusive use tests.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that chemicals used in the drug industry do not ordinarily have a single preponderant or exclusive use, and that neither predominant use nor exclusive use is a practical or reliable test for determining entitlement under the notification. The decisive factor is the actual use of the goods. The Tribunal also noted that the expression "drug intermediate" is not a precise scientific definition and rejected the notion that it must be limited to a penultimate product. Since the goods were shown to have been actually used in the manufacture of anesthetics, they satisfied the requirement of being drug intermediates for the purpose of the exemption.
Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. was held admissible, and the appellants succeeded on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi: For exemption of chemicals as drug intermediates, actual use in drug manufacture is the controlling criterion, and exemption cannot be denied by applying predominant use or exclusive use tests.