2003 (7) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med benefit of Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988 on the ground of "single ingredient formulation". The classification list were provisionally approved. A show cause notice No. CLPL/Bel-1/Pfizer/91/187/1705, dated 29-4-1992 was issued calling them to show cause why the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 29/88 should not be denied? Some time in January, 1993 the entity was tested by the Central Revenue Laboratory, New Delhi and thereafter, the Assistant Collector approved the classification list based on this test report, without affording personal hearing to the appellants. The RT 12 was thereafter assessed accordingly. Aggrieved by this order of classification. The appellants preferred an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) reman....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scular Solution, 500 mg/10 ml multi-dose vial" may not be considered therapeutically inert for the purpose of Notification No. 29/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88." and confirmed the lower authorities view. Hence, the present appeal." 2. After hearing both sides and considering the material, it is found that :- (a) The issue is fully covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Wander India Ltd., vide order Nos. 592-595/89-C, dated 12-10-1989 wherein it was held as follows :- "On the question as to whether Steclin and Resteclin intramuscular injections which contained lidocaine hydrochloride not specified in the schedule to the Notification No. 116/69-C.E., were eligible for the benefit of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Therefore, Steclin and Resteclin injections were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 116/69-C.E. Lidocaine hydrocloride added in the Steclin and Resteclin injections was a buffering agent and therefore, a pharmaceuticals a necessity. It was also therapeutically inert. In view of the above, addition of lidocaine hydrochloride was permissible for the purpose of benefit of Notification No. 116/69, as it satisfied all the parameters for addition of non-specified ingredients as set out in the Notification." (b) In this view of the matter, the present entity with Lidocaine would be eligible for the benefit of the said Notification, as the impugned order is based solely on the Test report which is nullity and bad in law, sin....