The pharmaceutical major Lupin has received favourable ruling from the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) on its review application for the revision of prices of “Rifampicin capsule and rifampicin syrup”. The DoP has directed the NPPA to revise the ceiling prices of “Rifampicin capsule and rifampicin syrup”.

Earlier, Lupin had filed review applications under paragraph 31 of the DPCO 2013, against notification S.O. No.1202(E) dated 06.05.2015 issued by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) fixing the ceiling price of “Rifampicin capsule and rifampicin syrup”.

In its review application, the petitioner stated that the price of their formulations i.e. rifampicin capsules and rifampicin syrup were fixed under DPCO 1995 on 20.12.13. As per para 10 of DPCO 2013 the prices were to be freezed for one year and thereafter they were entitled for a WPI increase which they had taken on 1st January 2015. As per DPCO 2013 under para 10(2) they were allowed an increase of WPI again on 1st April 2015. But NPPA has not allowed a WPI increase with effect from 20.12.2014. The petitioner requested that the WPI as per DPCO provisions may be allowed while fixing the price notification. The petitioner also stated that the stand of NPPA that allowing 6.32% WPI would amount to giving 2 WPI increase in one year which is incorrect as the increases are for two different financial year.

In response to the petitioner's arguments, the NPPA gave a detailed reply to the reviewing authority DoP.

While examining the issue in detail, the DoP commented, “It is seen from the provisions of DPCO 2013 mentioned above that the drugs which were under scheduled category under DPCO 1995 and are also under scheduled category under DPCO 2013 i.e. common scheduled formulations in both the DPCOs there has been a differential treatment given i.e. these formulations will remain under cooling period for one year i.e. no increase from the date of notification and immediately after one year the companies were allowed a WPI for the previous calendar year. Thereafter they will come on board with other scheduled formulations and be eligible for WPI with effect from 1st April of next year”.

“NPPA has erred in considering the data pertaining to 6 months before i.e. 30th September of the previous year by which they have ignored the WPI availed by the petitioner under para 10(2) quoted above. NPPA is also not correct in presuming that two WPI cannot be given in one year. DPCO 2013 under para 9(6) and 10(2) contains special provision of WPI for common formulations under both DPCO 1995 and DPCO 2013 i.e. first after one year of cooling and second in the beginning of the next financial year. Moreover in the instant case the WPI availed by the petitioner in December 2014 after one year of the notification date and second on 1st April, 2015 i.e in the next financial year. Therefore, the point of two WPI in one year by NPPA has no merit”, it further noted.

After examining the issue, DoP ordered, “NPPA may be directed to revise the prices of the subject formulations after the petitioner had availed WPI in December 2014 as per provisions of para 9(6) and 10(2) of DPCO 2013. The petitioner will be entitled for WPI again w.e.f. 1.4.2015 under para 16(1)”.