https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166713 Rolitetracycline was considered for exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. on the footing that it was therapeutically and antimicrobially similar to tetracycline hydrochloride, but the material did not establish identity of substance. The distinction between a base product and its derivative or form was treated as material for exemption purposes, so functional similarity alone was insufficient. On that basis, rolitetracycline could not be substituted for tetracycline hydrochloride, and the exemption claim failed. The separate presence of lignocaine hydrochloride in the intramuscular injection did not alter the result. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:22:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166713 Rolitetracycline was considered for exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. on the footing that it was therapeutically and antimicrobially similar to tetracycline hydrochloride, but the material did not establish identity of substance. The distinction between a base product and its derivative or form was treated as material for exemption purposes, so functional similarity alone was insufficient. On that basis, rolitetracycline could not be substituted for tetracycline hydrochloride, and the exemption claim failed. The separate presence of lignocaine hydrochloride in the intramuscular injection did not alter the result. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166713