Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: DPCO in Ranbaxy Laboratries Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 20 May, 2004Matching Fragments
2. DPCO was published in the Gazette of India dated 06.01.1995 and was made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, `EC Act'). Para 25 of the DPCO authorised the Government to exempt any manufacturer from the operation of the provisions of the Order subject to such conditions as may be deemed proper. Since the matter in controversy would require reference to certain paragraphs of the DPCO, the same are reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference :-
15. In so far as the issue of the Guidelines is concerned, learned senior counsel referred to sub-para 2 of para 23 of the DPCO to contend that the Guidelines have to be consistent with the provisions of the DPCO. It was, thus, submitted that if the Guidelines of 1995, which provide for following notified price on expiry of the exemption notification, are read as if to include the goods manufactured prior to the date of expiry of the exemption notification, then the same would not prevail and would be contrary to the DPCO since the exemption notification is part of the DPCO in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Parle Exports (P) Ltd.'s case (supra).
11. We need to make it clear that, regardless of the interpretation that we have placed on the said phrase, if there are circulars which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue."
The aforesaid judgment was referred to substantiate the plea that though the circular dated 28.04.1979 may not strictly be applicable, the principles have to be followed in view of the aforesaid judgment.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, sought to defend the stand taken by the Department on the ground that the DPCO has been issued under Section 37 of the EC Act and in view thereof it is the purchasing price for the consumer which is of relevance and not the commercial hardship. It was, thus, contended that the principles applicable to matters of excise and customs would not apply in case of the DPCO and it is only the date provided in the notification which is relevant.
19. It may, however, be noticed that, in the present case, there is no challenge to the price fixation and learned senior counsel for the petitioner emphasised the fact that even the notification of exemption issued is in public interest.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents emphasised the object of issue of the DPCO was to make available the drugs at the notified price to the consumer and the Guidelines issued themselves are clear which leave no manner of doubt. In this behalf, the relevant portion of the Guidelines quoted aforesaid was referred to emphasise the fact that the same provides for the manufacturer to follow the notified price `on the expiry of the notification'. Prior to the DPCO of 1995, the DPCO of 1987 was prevalent which was repealed when DPCO of 1995 brought into force. Even in respect of the DPCO of 1987, Guidelines used to exist though the specific provision quoted aforesaid did not form part of the Guidelines. Despite this fact, the Bombay High Court while interpreting the said Guidelines of 1995 made certain observations. This was in WP No. 1266/1999 titled `GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.' decided on 16.02.2004. It may, however, be noticed that an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court against the said judgment and notice has been issued though there is no stay of operation of the order. The said judgment dealt with the DPCO of 1987 and the Guidelines issued there under and it is specifically noted that one of the issues which arose was about the quantity of goods manufactured during the period of exemption notification but not sold within the same time. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner therein was that the company had a legitimate expectation that the drugs manufactured by it during the exemption period would be allowed to be sold at the price fixed by the company, but this contention was rejected being contrary to the objects of the EC Act as also the DPCO of 1987.