https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167029 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, denying the appellants the benefit of the Central Excise Notification. It was determined that Lignocaine Hydrochloride in the injection did not meet the criteria specified in the notification for concessional assessment, as it acted as a local anaesthetic and not under the specified categories. The appeal was rejected based on this finding, with the Tribunal emphasizing that other demands not raised in this case were not addressed in the judgment. en-us Wed, 06 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167029 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, denying the appellants the benefit of the Central Excise Notification. It was determined that Lignocaine Hydrochloride in the injection did not meet the criteria specified in the notification for concessional assessment, as it acted as a local anaesthetic and not under the specified categories. The appeal was rejected based on this finding, with the Tribunal emphasizing that other demands not raised in this case were not addressed in the judgment. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167029