Page 116 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

298 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

above judgment would squarely apply in the present case and the Petitioners
having suffered loss on account of the wrongful seizure of the subject formula-
tions by the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and costs should be awarded to them.
12. Mr. Patel, AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Jiten-
dra Mishra, Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have sup-
ported the action taken by the Respondents.
13. Having heard the arguments, we are of the view that this Petition is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in U.S.V. Ltd. (Supra). The term
“Narcotic Drug” or “Narcotic” with which we are concerned with in the present
case has been defined under Section 2(h) of the M & TP Act to mean a substance
which is coca leaf, or coca derivative, or opium, or derivative of opium, or Indian
hemp and shall include any other substance, capable of causing or producing in
human beings dependence, tolerance and withdrawal syndromes and which the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a
Narcotic Drug or Narcotic. Under the notification dated 12th June, 1986, issued
by the Central Government in terms of the said provisions of the M & TP Act,
substances have been declared as Narcotic Drug or Narcotic. The plain reading
of Item No. 86 in the notification extracted above which is the relevant item in
the present case a Narcotic Drug or Narcotic would include only formulations
containing more than 135 mgs. of Dextropropoxyphene per dosage unit. In the
present case admittedly the subject formulations contain less than 135 mgs. i.e. 65
mgs. of Dextropropoxyphene and hence cannot be classified as a Narcotic drug
or Narcotic in view of the said Notification.
14. We accordingly hold and declare that the subject formulations of
the Petitioners containing less than 135 mgs. i.e. 65 mgs. of Dextropropoxyphene
are excluded from being classified as a Narcotic Drug under the Section 2(h) of
the M & TP Act. We find that the view taken by the Respondents viz. that the
Petitioners are liable to the State Excise Duty under the M & TP Act is thoroughly
untenable and we quash the impugned demand notices.
15. We direct the Respondents to pay the Petitioners costs of Rs.
50,000/- for the loss caused to the Petitioners on account of the wrongful seizure
of the subject formulations. The Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited with the Registry pursuant to the interim order dated 4th
May, 1999 together with interest, if any, accrued thereon.
16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 298 (P & H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ajay Tewari and Avneesh Jhingan, JJ.
COMMR. OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, ROHTAK
Versus
GAWAR CONSTRUCTION LTD.

CEA No. 60 of 2019, decided on 27-2-2020
1
Refund - Duty wrongly paid - Duty paid on insistence of supplier de-
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (370) E.L.T. 780 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  116