2001 (9) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the appellants. In terms of Sr. No. 6 ibid, the effective rate of duty payable on bulk drugs [other than bulk drugs specified under First Schedule to Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 as amended from time to time] was 10% ad valorem. Accordingly, the appellants filed classification list claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the notification, and the classification list was duly approved by the proper officer of Central Excise. The above notification was amended by Notification No. 7/95-C.E., dated 9-2-1995, whereby Sr. No. 6 and the entries relating thereto in the table annexed to the former notification were omitted along with the explanation to that notification. But, before such amendment of Notification No. 6/94....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry of interest on the above amount of duty under Section 11AB of the Act. The present appeal is against this order of the Commissioner. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 4. Ld. Counsel, Sh. J.P. Kaushik, for the appellants, submits that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellants by the decision of the South Regional Bench (Bangalore) of the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Chemsyn Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2001 (138) E.L.T. 697 (Tribunal) = 2001 (44) R.L.T. 407]. He also, fairly, submits that the very same issue was decided in favour of the Revenue by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (35) R.L.T. 575]. Ld. Counsel furth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 as amended from time to time] manufactured and cleared by other assessees during the period from 6-1-1995 to 8-2-1995 had arisen before co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the aforecited cases of Karnataka Chemsyn and Ranbaxy Laboratories. We further find that, in the former case, the Bench held that the benefit of Notification was available to the assesssee, while, in the latter case, it was held by the other Bench that the benefit would not be available. Precisely the same issue has arisen in the present case before us. In view of the conflicting decisions on the issue, we think that it will be appropriate to refer the issue to a Larger Bench, without expressing our view on a....