ALBERT DAVID LTD., AHLCON Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products including various types of Intravenous Fluids [hereinafter referred to as "IV Fluids"] falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, IV Fluids were exempt from Central Excise duty under Sr. No. 47A of Notification No. 6/2000 -CE dated 1.3.2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000 -CE dated 4.5.2000. The appellants claimed this exemption in respect of some of their products and accordingly cleared the goods without payment of duty during the period from or after 4.5.2000 upto 28.2.2001. From 1.3.2001, they have cleared such goods on payment of duty in view of Notification No. 3/2001 -CE dated 1.3.2001, whereunder "Intravenous fluids, which are used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment" were exempted from duty vide Sr. No. 56 to the Table to the Notification. The products which were cleared without payment of duty during 4.5.2000 - 28.2.2001 by M/s Albert David Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Albert David") were the following:

(2.) We have heard both the sides and considered their submissions. The common issue arising from all these appeals is whether the products cleared as TV Fluids' by the appellants during the period 4.5.2000 to 28.2.2001 were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2000 -CE dated 1.3.2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000 -CE dated 4.5.2000. The amending notification introduced Entry No. 47A in the Table annexed to Notification No. 6/2000 -CE. The description of goods under this entry was "Intravenous Fluids" of Chapter 30 of the Schedule to, the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Notification No. 6/2000 -CE, so amended, granted full exemption from duty to "Intravenous Fluids". On 1.3.2001, the Central Government issued Notification No. 3/2001 -CE. Entry No. 56 in the Table annexed to this Notification was also meant for specific goods falling under Chapter 30 and this entry reads as under:

(3.) Ld. Advocate Shri V.L. Kumaran has submitted that Intravenous Fluids are large volume parenterals for intravenous administration, not only for fluid replacement, electrolyte -balance restoration and supplementary nutrition but also as a vehicle for administration of drugs. He has pointed out that Entry No. 56 ibid does not indicate that IV Fluids covered thereunder should exclusively be used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. He has referred to Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine and Allied Health (Fourth Edition), Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences, British Pharmacopoeia 1988 (Volume -II) and Indian Pharmacopoeia (Volume -I/Third Edition) and has submitted that all the products cleared by his clients during the period of dispute were covered by the meaning of 'Intravenous Fluids' in terms of scientific literature. Ld. Advocate Shri C.S. Lodha, has contended that Entry No. 47A of Notification No. 6/2000 -CE (as amended by Notification No. 36/2000 -CE) was not affected by anything contained in Notification No. 3/2001 -CE as the latter Notification was not an amending Notification but a fresh, independent Notification. He has also argued that the budgetary clarification of the term 'IV Fluids' was not a part of the Finance Bill 2001 and the same cannot be relied on to hold that Entry 56 of Notification No. 3/2001 -CE was clarificatory and retrospective. It has been emphatically argued that, during the period of dispute, Intravenous Fluids used for whatever purpose were exempted from duty in terms of Entry No. 47A of Notification No. 6/2000 -CE as amended. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the Supreme Court's decision in the cases of