Exemption under Notification No. 116/69 upheld for Furagyl Suspension with Metronidazole Benzoate despite classification objections.

Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 116/69 for Furagyl Suspension containing Metronidazole Benzoate was upheld where the added ester did not alter the applicable notification benefit. The denial based on the absence of a relevant classification list for the material year and the alleged need for departmental disclosure was rejected, as the Tribunal followed an earlier Special Bench ruling on the same ingredient and similar facts and also noted a consistent view in another comparable appeal. On that basis, the assessee qualified for the exemption and the refusal to extend the notification was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 116/69 in respect of Furagyl Suspension containing Metronidazole Benzoate.

Analysis: The exemption had been denied on the basis that the classification list referred to Furagyl Suspension and that no relevant classification list was filed for the material year, coupled with the view that the notification imposed conditions requiring disclosure to the department. The Tribunal held that the dispute was covered by an earlier Special Bench decision on the same ingredient and similar facts, where the addition of an ester to the ingredient was held not to justify denial of the notification benefit. The Tribunal also noted that a similar view had been taken in another appeal on comparable facts. In these circumstances, the assessee's entitlement to the exemption was able.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 116/69 and the denial of exemption was not sustainable.

---