Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 'IV 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 "Intraveous 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: Intravenous fluids, which are used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment In the case of Albert David, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the above Entry No. 56 was clarificatory in nature and hence retrospective in effect. The Commissioner, for this purpose, relied on case law as well as on a certain budgetary clarification of the year 2001-2002. Accordingly, it was held that the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Entry 47A of Notification No. 6/2000-CE (as amended) was available, for the period 4.5.2000 to 28.2.2001, only to those IV Fluids which were used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. On this basis, the products cleared by Albert David during the said period, which were found to be drugs and not to be used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment were held to be dutiable. In the case of Ahlcon, the Commissioner (Appeals) also gave retrospective effect to Entry No. 56 of Notification No. 3/2001-CE and held that the goods cleared by the assessee during the above period were only intravenously administered medicines and not Intravenous Fluids. In the case of Wockhardt, however, the adjudicating authority recorded contradictory findings on the question whether Notification No. 3/2001-CE had retrospective effect. While, in one place, the Commissioner observed that the said Notification not being an amending notification but a separate notification could not have retrospective effect, he recorded a finding in another part of his order that Entry No. 56 of the Notification was just clarificatory in nature. Notwithstanding these contradictory findings, the Commissioner held that the products cleared by Wockhardt during the period of dispute were just injectable medicines and not Intravenous Fluids. In all three cases, the authorities concerned relied on technical literature, pharmacopoeia, encyclopedia, dictionaries etc. In the case of Wockhardt, a test report of the Chemical Examiner was also relied on.

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 there under 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 1998 (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 Union of India and Ors. v. Kanunga Industries , Indian Tool Manufacturers v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Milak Brothers v. Union of India . Counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Keti Chemicals . It has been, further, submitted that the Central Government had no power under the Central Excise Act to make rules with retrospective effect. Exemption Notifications issued under Section 5A of the Act formed a part of the statute itself and, therefore, it was beyond the Government's power to give retrospective effect to Entry No. 56 of Notification No. 3/2001-CE. In this context, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in the Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector 1978 ELT (J 375). Counsel has also claimed support from the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Magnum Solution P. Ltd 2002 (51) RLT 785. Shri V.L. Kumaran has relied on the Tribunal's decision in Usha Martin Telecom Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta 2001 (45) RLT 1054 in support of his submission that as the budgetary clarification was not present during the period of dispute, retrospective effect cannot be given to Entry No. 56 of Notification No. 3/2001-CE by invoking the said clarification. It has also been pointed out that the Tribunal's decision in Usha Martin Telecom Ltd. was upheld by the Supreme Court vide 2002 (49) RLT 1049.

10. A view has been taken in the cases of Albert David and Ahlcon by the lower authorities to the effect that the goods which were cleared as TV Fluids' by the said companies during the period of dispute did not conform to the specifications of TV Fluids' in terms of technical literature. The view taken by the authorities is that the products in question were meant for intravenous infusion for medicinal purposes and were not merely intended to be used as fluid replenishment in human body. It has also been held that the products were IV Fluids containing added substances. On this basis, the authorities have held that the subject goods were not 'Intravenous Fluids' within the meaning of this term under Entry No. 47A of Notification No. 6/2000-CE as amended by Notification No. 36/2000-CE. This view has been contested by Ld. Counsel on the strength of technical literature such as pharmacopoeia, encyclopedia and dictionaries. After a careful perusal of the literature cited before us, we are of the view that the stand taken by the lower authorities is not justifiable. Intravenous infusion means administration of fluids through a vein vide Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health (supra). The encyclopedia further says that intravenous therapy is not limited to replacement of body fluids and electrolyte supplements, and many medications are administered by intravenous infusion. All the literature shown to us invariably say that intravenous fluids are large-volume sterile solutions packed in containers holding 100 ml or more. In Chapter 8 of Sterile Dosage Forms (3rd Edition) by Salvatore Turco & Robert E. King, we read thus: