2019 (5) TMI 572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ucknowBench I, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 442 of 2006, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionist-applicant and confirming the order of first appellate authority. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant is that the revisionist-applicant is trader of medicines known as 'PARAXIN 250', which contains salt as 'Chloramphenicol'. The learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has further submitted that by means of Notification No. ST-II-1217/ XI/9-( 94)/91 U.P. Act-1548 Order-92, dated 31.03.1992, the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 4 (a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), has exempted the certain medicines mentioned in the Schedule an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onist-applicant contains the 'Chloramphenicol' as mentioned at Serial No. 08 of the Schedule, as per the Notification dated 31st March, 1992, and now the authorities have given certain adverse finding that the benefit of exemption cannot be granted to the revisionist-applicant. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn attention of this Court about the decision rendered by this Court in the case of M/s Mercury Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Sales Tax). 2000 U.P.T.C page 82. He has submitted that this Court in the said case has come to the conclusion that the products containing 'Chloramphenicol' was covered by the scheduled. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as only relied upon the findings of the Assessing Authority and First Appellate Authority has reiterated that the revisionist-applicant has not placed any material to prove that the products for exemption have been sought. The learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant submitted that the learned Tribunal in it's order admitted that the revisionist-applicant had produced the wrapper of the products, which mentions that the ingredients of the product is 'Chloramphenicol Capsules I.P 'Paraxin 500'. Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has further submitted that the Tribunal had sufficient material to come to a conclusion that the product of the revisionist-applicant was liable to be exempted as per the Notification da....