2004 (5) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y under Chapter 30. The items are: (i) Dilutions; (ii) CME Eye Drops; (iii) Ointments other than Graphite & Sulfur; and (iv) Speciality Tablets 2. The appellant's contention is that these items contained Alcohol and they have been discharging duty under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955 and therefore levy of Central Excise duty is not permissible. They also produced certificates from Shriram Institute for Industrial Research, New Delhi and Oasis Test House, Ahmd. in support of their contention. Test reports made by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory during June 2003 also confirmed the presence of alcohol (Ethyl Alcohol). The appellant also relied on judicial pronouncement, mainly the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....visions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and not under the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the aforementioned decisions, the Supreme Court has nowhere held that mere use of Mother Tincture, which contains alcohol, makes the products excisable under the 1955 Act though in the final product there may be no trace of alcohol". 4. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that it is settled law that for the purpose of attracting provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 a product need not necessarily retain alcohol in its final marketed form. It would be sufficient if alcohol or an item containing alcohol as an ingredien....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. That is also not an issue in the present case since test reports of the appellant's samples had confirmed presence of alcohol. We are merely noting this legal position only to show that the learned adjudicating authority has not correctly understood the judgment. The factual position as noted already is that (illegible) two-test reports of private test laboratories confirmed the presence of alcohol in the samples drawn during the Show Cause Notice period. There is no doubt cast on the authenticity or reliability of these reports. For the subsequent period, when the correct method of test, namely, Gas Layer Chromatography technique was followed, the Central Revenue Control Laboratory....