1988 (10) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., arising out of the order of the Tribunal, dated 26th November, 1987. The issue involved in the present case Is whether the Acetic Anhydride manufactured by the respondent and sold to drug manufacturers i.e. M/s. IDPL is eligible to benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1 st March, 1975 as amended by the Notification No. 62/78-C.E., dated 1.3.1978 as drug intermediate. 2. The respondent manufactured Acetic Anhydride falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It had filed refund claims for Rs. 1,57,442.08 and Rs. 1,14,587.74 being the duty paid on Acetic Anhydride during the period from 5.2.1981 to 28.6.1981 and from 23.7.1981 to 26.2.1982 contending that these goods were exempt from the pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mysore [1984 (17) ELT 319], wherein it was held that Acetic Anhydride is a chemical but when it is supplied as a drug intermediate to a drug manufacturer, it would be entitled to exemption under the relevant Notification. The requirement of end-use, though not built into the exemption notification, is not only implied but also becomes imperative in a situation where the product has uses other than as drug intermediate whereas the exemption is limited only to drug intermediate, i.e., only when the product is used as drug intermediate. In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of the Government of India in Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., where reversing the order of the Excise Authorities of Bombay, the Government by its order da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hough not built into the exemption notification is not only implied but also becomes imperative in a situation where the produce has uses other than as drug intermediate whereas the exemption is limited only to drug intermediate that is only when the product is used as a drug intermediate." 5. It appears that the same principle was reiterated in the case of Shasum Chemicals (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (1982 ELT 786). It is well settled that the meaning ascribed by the authority issuing the Notification, is a good guide of a contemporaneous exposition of the position of law. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court In K.P. Varghese v. The Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam (1982 SCR 629). It is a well settled principle of interpretation ....