https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167180 Kemicetine vaginal suppositories were held not to be parenteral preparations because parenteral use requires administration beyond the alimentary canal with systemic absorption, whereas this product was used as a local or topical treatment for female genital tract infections. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. therefore failed. On limitation, the extended period was not sustainable because the show-cause notices and adjudication record did not clearly and specifically plead or prove fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement. Recovery was accordingly confined to the normal limitation period. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:45:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167180 Kemicetine vaginal suppositories were held not to be parenteral preparations because parenteral use requires administration beyond the alimentary canal with systemic absorption, whereas this product was used as a local or topical treatment for female genital tract infections. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. therefore failed. On limitation, the extended period was not sustainable because the show-cause notices and adjudication record did not clearly and specifically plead or prove fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement. Recovery was accordingly confined to the normal limitation period. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167180