2016 (12) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... B.L. Narahimhan, Advocate for the appellant-assessee Shri Yogesh Agarwal, A.R. for the respondent/Revenue ORDER B. Ravichandran The appeal is against the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pepfiz Effervescent Tables ( Pepfiz ) using, among other things, absolute alcohol/ethanol. The dispute arose regardin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... May 2004. On appeal vide impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the original order on duty demand. However, he set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. The central point of dispute is liability of the appellant for central excise levy by considering that the impugned goods do not contain alcohol. The admitted facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....71 (1) SCR 590 held that in order to attract duty under the 1955 Act all that is required is that a medicinal preparation should contain alcohol. Alcohol may be part of the preparation either because it is directly added to the solution or it came to be included in it because one of the components of that preparation contained alcohol. The Tribunal in SBL Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Jaipur 2004 (172) EL....