JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the appellant did not contravene the condition contained in the third clause of the proviso to notification 245/83 and was therefore entitled to its benefit. The notification grants partial exemption to patent or proprietary medicaments. The proviso required that the manufacturer must claim exemption under the notification “in respect of medicine cleared by him, retail price of which is specified in the said price list.” It is clear from the notification that the price list referred to in it is that specified in paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979.
2. The allegation of contravention of the condition in the proviso to the notification was made on the ground that the respondent did not declare the price of goods that it manufactured as a loan licensee, that is to say, i.e. on behalf of another manufacturer which it referred to the principal manufacturer. The price list referred to in the Drug (Prices Control) Order is required to be filed by the manufacturer who sells the goods. That in this case would be the principal manufacturer, the one on whose behalf the respondent undertook the job. The respondent would not have been required to file a price list for these goods. Its failure to include the goods in the price list that it filed would hence not lead to contravention of the third clause of the proviso. This is the reasoning on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order. We find no ground for interference.
3. Appeal dismissed.