2023-VIL-1354-CESTAT-DEL-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2023-VIL-1354-CESTAT-DEL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Manufacture of pharmaceutical products availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 49/2003 dated 10.06.2003 - from 14.01.2015 the appellant applied for Central Excise Registration but was paying Central Excise Duty at the rate of 2% in view of Notification No. 01/2011- CE dated 01.03.2011, as amended - Department of the view that the said entry is with respect to Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathic or Bio-chemic systems, whereas the appellant was manufacturing allopathic drugs - Whether the allopathic medicaments are eligible for the exemption of central excise duty but for at the rate of 2% in terms of Notification No. 01/2011 dated 01.03.2011 – HELD – The column (3) of the impugned notification (Entry No. 37) talks about the medicaments manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 or Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of India or USA or UK or the German Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, as the case may be, and sold under the name as specified in such books or pharmacopeia - the language of the notification is reflects the intention of legislature that the meaning of medicaments is enlarged to include those used in Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and even Homeopathic and Bio-chemic systems but only such medicaments as prepared in accordance with the formulae of the books of First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetic Act - there is no ambiguity created by the legislature by using the word “includes” with the medicaments when medicaments prepared in accordance of books about Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha. From no stretch of imagination such medicaments can mean to include allopathic medicaments within their scope by the mere use of word “include”. More so, for the reason that there is no possibility of description of any formula for allopathic medicament in the books meant for medicaments manufactured under Ayurveda and Siddha systems – the benefit of duty exemption has rightly been denied to the appellant - On the issue of extended period of limitation, the facts that the appellant was operating under self-assessment and that it was in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals are both not relevant to invoking extended period of limitation - There is no mis-statement as all the facts have been correctly indicated in the ER-8 Returns filed by the appellant and also on the aluminium foils and packing of the goods even as per the SCN - Wrong claim of an exemption notification is not a ground provided under section 11A for invoking extended period of limitation - the demand is confined to the normal period – the appeal is partly allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

VILGST-TAX CONNECT WEBINAR
19th July 2025

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?