2002 (10) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isallowed. 3.They, therefore, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 14th February, 1985 noted that the Department did not challenge the claim that the citric acid, manufactured by the respondents, was a pharmacopoeial standard acid. In spite of this, the Tribunal held that before exemption can be claimed under this Notification it must be shown that the end-use was for the manufacture of drugs. The Tribunal, therefore, remitted the matter back for determination as to what quantity was being used for the manufacture of drugs. The Tribunal held that the respondents would only be entitled to exemption on the quantity of citric acid used for manufacture of drugs. 4.Against this order of the Tribunal, the res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....55/75 as amended by Notification No. 62/78 as drug intermediate. The manufacturer had succeeded before the Tribunal and the appeal was carried to the Supreme Court by the Collector. The Supreme Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment observed that the question is 'was the item manufactured a drug or an intermediate in terms of the notification'. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that on the facts of the case that Acetic Anhydride manufactured was used in the manufacture of the drugs. In view of the finding of fact noticed by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether the end-use of the manufactured product can be considered to determine levy of duty or benefit of exemption notification did not come up for consideration....