https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1807 Exemption under the relevant central excise notifications was upheld because the addition of calcium carbonate, used only in low dosage as a diluent, was not shown to make the ingredient therapeutically active or to interfere with the therapeutic activity of chlorpropamide. The notifications permitted only therapeutically inert pharmaceutical necessities, and that condition was not proved to be breached. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because an earlier show cause notice on the same facts showed departmental awareness, preventing a valid allegation of suppression. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1807 Exemption under the relevant central excise notifications was upheld because the addition of calcium carbonate, used only in low dosage as a diluent, was not shown to make the ingredient therapeutically active or to interfere with the therapeutic activity of chlorpropamide. The notifications permitted only therapeutically inert pharmaceutical necessities, and that condition was not proved to be breached. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because an earlier show cause notice on the same facts showed departmental awareness, preventing a valid allegation of suppression. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1807