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 Terpineol present in Dettol Antiseptic Cream was an active ingredient so as to disqualify the product from the benefit of Notification No. 29/88 dated 01.03.1988.
Analysis: The product admittedly contained Chloroxylenol B.P.C. and Terpineol, but the decisive question was whether the quantity of Terpineol made it an active ingredient in its own right. Since the classification depended on the composition and its effect, the matter required technical clarification from the Drug Controller on the entire formulation and the role of Terpineol. The Tribunal therefore found it appropriate to remit the matter for a fresh decision after obtaining such clarification.
Conclusion: The issue was not finally determined on merits; the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication. If Terpineol is found to be an active ingredient, the exemption will be unavailable, and if it is not, the exemption under the notification will be available.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a remand for fresh adjudication on entitlement to the exemption notification, with the substantive benefit depending on the technical finding regarding Terpineol.
Ratio Decidendi: Where eligibility for an exemption turns on the technical character of a constituent as an active ingredient, the proper course is to obtain expert clarification and decide the claim afresh on the basis of the composition.