https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52982 Intravenous fluids covered by Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., as amended, remained exempt where they were sterile large-volume preparations cleared for intravenous use, and the later Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. could not retrospectively narrow that earlier exemption. Products of 100 ml or more with medicinal additives were treated as intravenous fluids, while smaller-volume preparations and goods for peritoneal dialysis or irrigation fell outside the exemption. Duty was sustained only for the non-qualifying goods, but penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q and interest under Section 11AB were not justified because the dispute was interpretational and the relevant facts were disclosed. Cum-duty benefit was directed in recomputation. en-us Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:14:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52982 Intravenous fluids covered by Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., as amended, remained exempt where they were sterile large-volume preparations cleared for intravenous use, and the later Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. could not retrospectively narrow that earlier exemption. Products of 100 ml or more with medicinal additives were treated as intravenous fluids, while smaller-volume preparations and goods for peritoneal dialysis or irrigation fell outside the exemption. Duty was sustained only for the non-qualifying goods, but penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q and interest under Section 11AB were not justified because the dispute was interpretational and the relevant facts were disclosed. Cum-duty benefit was directed in recomputation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52982