2002 (11) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to exemption contained in Notification 8/96 with regard to roxithromycin that it manufactured and cleared during the period 1-9-1996 to 28-2-1997. In the show cause notice issued to it on 1-10-2001 the duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant does not seriously challenge the applicability of the ratio of the earlier decision to the facts before us. He however contends that the extended period of limitation will not be available. The ground involved in the notice for invoking the extended period of limitation is that the appellant had suppressed from the department the fact that roxithromycin did not conform to pharmacopoe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the appellant had suppressed that the fact that roxithromycin was not a pharmacopoeial standard. 4. The departmental representative contends that the exemption that would be applicable to the goods during the relevant period is contained in Notification 8/96. The classification list that the appellant referred to only mentions Notification 8/95. Therefore, there has been suppression in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddition to the fact that this argument is outside the scope of the notice which as we have noticed alleged suppression on the ground of absence of pharmacopoeial standards for roxithromycin. We have already recorded the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard and we find it to be acceptable. If out of the four products of which the exemption was claimed, three were indicated to ....