TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (6) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11 products, as drug intermediates under TI 68, and claimed exemption under Notification No. 55/75, superceded by Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-1982. It appeared to the department that the products in r/o which the assessee claimed the exemption under the aforesaid notification, were not drug intermediates and hence it appeared to the officers that the exemption claimed was not admissible to them. Therefore, the said products were held as liable to duty under TI-68. The assessee were manufacturing products mentioned hereinafter claiming classification under TI-68 and exemption under Notification 55/75 (as amended), superceded by Notification No. 234/82. 1. Dehydro isodandrosterone. 2. Pregneolone Alcohol. 3. 16:17 Oxido....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the show cause notice dated 30-10-1985 was not adjudicated on until 1991 viz. for a period of six years. The show cause notice is dated 30-10-1985. It refers to the period from August, 1981 to June, 1983. There is absolutely not a single word or allegation of fraud, suppression or mis-statement. Therefore, the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act would not apply. In that event the entire show cause notice is beyond the period of six months limitation. 4. Coming to the merits the appellants submit that pharmacopoeial monographs mention about those chemicals that are active drugs (e.g. prednisolone, hydrocortisone etc.) or those chemicals that are used as excipients (eg. starch, lactose etc.) in the manufacture of unit dose pharmaceutic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserve that the Collector's orders is based merely on the Dy. Chief Chemists opinion/report but a copy of the same has not been produced before us. The appellants have stated that in respect of their request neither a copy of the report has been supplied to them nor he has been allowed to be cross examined in spite of request. We find that in our record there are a number of reports by the Chemical Examiners but all these reports merely indicate that the sample is organic compound. They do not indicate at all as to whether the items were or were not drug intermediates. The appellants have produced a lot of technical literature including the `Diosgenin and other steroid drug precursors' by L.V. Asolkar and Y.R. Chadha published by the CSIR, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shown in molecular flow-sheet of some steroid processes using diosgenin. A manufacturer may terminate the steroid reaction at the intermediate level, sell the intermediate to othe manufacturer or convert the same to desired drug as and when the demand arises. It may be mentioned here that a steroid drug may become an intermediate for other steroid drugs, e.g. progesterone for cortisone or estrone for 19-Nor compounds. The following steroids which are not drugs but are pure intermediates or `midgets' for the above group of compounds, are obtained from 16-DPA. 9. The appellant has also filed as annexure I a table indicating the name of the drug/drug intermediate, CSIR page number and Merck Index page wherever applicable. 10. Prima....