TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (8) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cturers were liable to pay excise duty on the manufactured products in their factory. The Government of India has enacted a special procedure for the movement of duty paid materials or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable products. The said procedure is laid down in Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), the relevant portion of which is as follows :- "56A. Special procedure for movement of duty-paid materials of component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify the excisable goods in respect of which the proced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6, dated October 8, 1966 under which the manufacturers of patent and proprietary medicines were given an option under which the excise duty payable on their products could be determined either under Section 4 of the Act or under the notification. 4. The pharmaceutical industry represented to the Government that it was not open to advertise certain drugs and the manufacturers are required to give free samples to hospitals, nursing homes and medical practitioners. The manufacturers also represented that a portion of the patent or proprietary medicines are required to be kept aside from each batch of the drugs for testing of quality control purposes. The manufacturers thereupon requested for certain exemption from payment of excise duty. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise, Bombay but the appeal was dismissed by an order dated October 30, 1973. The validity and legality of the demand notice and the orders passed by the authorities below are under challenge in the petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Desai, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, contended that the petitioners are entitled to the advantage of notification dated April 20, 1961 annexed as "Ex. B" to the petition and the authorities below was clearly in error in holding that proviso (1) of Rule 56-A of the Rules deprives the petitioners of that advantage. The short question which falls, therefore, for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to advantage of the notificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a concession is given in respect of quantity not exceeding 5% of the value of the total duty paid. Mr. Desai submits that as the item manufactured by the petitioners is not wholly exempted, the authorities below were in error in holding that the proviso comes into play. It is not possible to accept this submission. A particular quantity has been wholly exempted from the excise duty and that quantity is determinable with reference to the clearance of all types of patent or proprietary medicines. The reading of the proviso and the notification makes it abundantly clear that the clinical samples of a particular quantity are wholly exempted and, therefore, the proviso is directly attracted. 8. Mr. Desai then submitted that Rule 56-A must b....