https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53920 A pharmacopoeia-based exemption was available only where the product was shown to fall within the relevant publication during the material period; Roxythromycin did not satisfy that condition before 1-1-1997, and suppression justified invocation of the extended limitation period. By contrast, Nimesulide qualified for exemption because Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia was treated as an official pharmacopoeia and the declaration covered the relevant period. On penalties, Section 11AC applied, but the full 100% penalty was not warranted on the facts, and the separate Rule 173Q penalty was not sustained. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53920 A pharmacopoeia-based exemption was available only where the product was shown to fall within the relevant publication during the material period; Roxythromycin did not satisfy that condition before 1-1-1997, and suppression justified invocation of the extended limitation period. By contrast, Nimesulide qualified for exemption because Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia was treated as an official pharmacopoeia and the declaration covered the relevant period. On penalties, Section 11AC applied, but the full 100% penalty was not warranted on the facts, and the separate Rule 173Q penalty was not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53920