As per case facts, the appellant, MAC Laboratories, manufactured Kemicetine Vaginal Suppositories containing chloramphenicol, which were initially granted excise duty exemption as a life-saving drug. Subsequently, the department issued notices ... demanding duty, asserting the medicine was neither for oral nor parenteral use, a claim upheld by lower authorities. The suppositories are introduced vaginally, melt, and are absorbed systemically to treat internal vaginal infections, and the appellant argued that "parenteral use" encompassed routes beyond injections. The lower Tribunal, however, narrowly defined parenteral administration as involving systemic absorption but excluded local applications for local effects, thereby denying the exemption. The question arose whether Kemicetine Vaginal Suppositories, containing chloramphenicol, qualified as "chloramphenicol and its esters for oral and parenteral use" within the meaning of Notification No. 116/69-CE as amended by Notification No. 106/80-CE, thus entitling them to total exemption. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the term "parenteral" has a very wide ambit, encompassing all non-enteral methods of administration, including local applications like vaginal suppositories, that lead to systemic absorption or bypass the alimentary canal. The Court found the Tribunal's hyper-technical and narrow interpretation erroneous, stating that such a reading would defeat the legislative intent of extending benefits to all chloramphenicol-based medicines. Therefore, the suppositories were covered by the exemption notification and entitled to total exemption.