Medley Labs P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....which reads as under : - "all formulations based on the list of bulk drugs... specified in the first schedule to the drugs (prices) control order, 1987 ... either individually or in combination with other bulk drugs specified in the said schedule excluding formulations based on tetracycline or hydrocortisone, for any therapeutic use other than for opthalmological use." the item in dispute is a formulation consisting of pyrimathemine and sulpha-doxine. while pyrimathemine is a bulk drug specified in the schedule to the drugs (prices) control order, 1987, sulpha-doxine does not figure therein. the appellants contend that a combination of pyrimathemine with sulpha-doxine has been held to fall under category 1 of the dpco, 1987, and in this connection they refer to the letter addressed by the department of chemicals and petrochemicals to m/s.groydon chemical works p. ltd., bombay, dated 12-6-1989, which letter has also been circulated to all industry associations. the learned dr is correct in pointing out that this letter only indicates the categorisation of the combination of pyrimathemine with sulpha-doxine and cannot be interpreted to mean that sulpha-doxine is also a.....

Judgment:

1. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits. Hence we proceeded to hear the learned DR and considered the submissions contained in the appeal memorandum. The appellants herein are manufacturers of Fadomin tablets falling for classification under 3003.10. There is no dispute about the classification of the product and the only dispute in the present appeal is whether the abovementioned product is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988. The benefit has been denied by the authorities below for the reason that it contains two ingredients out of which only one falls under the First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices) Control Order, 1987. The condition of the Notification is that the Patent or Proprietary Medicaments falling under Heading 3003 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 which are covered by the Notification should satisfy the condition set out in the table appended to the Notification which reads as under : - "All formulations based on the list of bulk drugs... specified in the first schedule to the Drugs (Prices) Control Order, 1987 ...

either individually or in combination with other bulk drugs specified in the said Schedule excluding formulations based on tetracycline or hydrocortisone, for any therapeutic use other than for opthalmological use." The item in dispute is a formulation consisting of Pyrimathemine and sulpha-doxine. While pyrimathemine is a bulk drug specified in the Schedule to the Drugs (Prices) Control Order, 1987, sulpha-doxine does not figure therein. The appellants contend that a combination of pyrimathemine with sulpha-doxine has been held to fall under category 1 of the DPCO, 1987, and in this connection they refer to the letter addressed by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals to M/s.

Groydon Chemical Works P. Ltd., Bombay, dated 12-6-1989, which letter has also been circulated to all Industry Associations. The learned DR is correct in pointing out that this letter only indicates the categorisation of the combination of pyrimathemine with sulpha-doxine and cannot be interpreted to mean that sulpha-doxine is also a bulk drug specified in the First Schedule to the DPCO, 1987. On a plain reading of the Notification, it is clear that the benefit of the Notification would not be available to this combination product since one of the drugs viz., sulpha-doxine is not specified in the First Schedule to the DPCO, 1987.

2. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the authorities below and accordingly confirm the impugned order and reject the appeal.