Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1998 (10) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons, briefly, the appellants have mainly stated in their written submission that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30. In addition to their own branded products, they manufacture branded pharmaceutical products of other persons in their factory on loan licence basis. Their factory is an undertaking registered with the Director of Industries, Maharashtra as a small scale industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. 2.  During the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 they were manufacturing Zoacide-V tablets using Miconazole Nitrate and Newmycin Sulphate as ingredients, Decanazole cream using Miconazole Nitrate as ingredient, and Estolin in Syrup and tablet for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s formulation, Erythromycin Estolate, was a salt cum ester of Erythromycin which was not specified in the tariff entry below sub-heading 3003.11 was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector and the show cause notice was withdrawn in his speaking order, dated 15-3-1988. The same issue was reopened by his successor without bringing out any new facts on record and without obtaining higher appellate authority's sanction for reopening the case in a manner known to law, and a demand was confirmed in his speaking order, dated 14-8-1991. 5.  The Collector (Appeals) rejected their appeal and upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector. In his order, dated 12-2-1992, the Collector (Appeals) ignored the illegality pointed out by us in opening....