https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96144 Notification No. 45/82-C.E. was construed as allowing concessional duty only for medicines supplied directly to the specified Government recipients, so supplies routed through approved chemists did not satisfy the express condition and the exemption was unavailable on that ground. By contrast, where the E.S.I.S. arrangement was validly extended or renewed, the exemption could not be denied merely because the original contract period had ended; the continuity of the underlying contract was a relevant and admissible factor. The discussion therefore distinguishes strict compliance with the direct-supply requirement from contractual continuity under a renewed arrangement. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:45:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96144 Notification No. 45/82-C.E. was construed as allowing concessional duty only for medicines supplied directly to the specified Government recipients, so supplies routed through approved chemists did not satisfy the express condition and the exemption was unavailable on that ground. By contrast, where the E.S.I.S. arrangement was validly extended or renewed, the exemption could not be denied merely because the original contract period had ended; the continuity of the underlying contract was a relevant and admissible factor. The discussion therefore distinguishes strict compliance with the direct-supply requirement from contractual continuity under a renewed arrangement. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96144