1993 (1) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t" manufactured and patented by the Petitioners, is not eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 116/69 dated 3rd May, 1969. 2.By the said Notification No. 116/69 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted patent or proprietary medicines falling under Item No. 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and containing one or more of the ingredients specified in the Schedule thereto annexed, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The material part of the said Notification which falls for consideration, reads thus :- "Nothing contained in paragraph 1 shall apply to any medicine which c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 116/69. The Respondents contend that mere presence of Calcium Carbonate and Magnesium Carbonate in the composition irrespective of the quantity and regardless of whether it was active as an antacid or not, takes the tablet outside the scope of the said Notification. 4.The point involved does not seem to be any more res-integrata. In the case of M/s. May & Baker (India) Limited and another v. Union of India [1989 (43) E.L.T. 411 (Bom.)] (Writ Petition No. 2667 of 1982 decided on 21st June, 1989 by the learned Single Judge of this Court), a similar contention of the Respondents in the matter of Flagyl tablets, has been rejected and the said Judgment has been confirmed by the Divisio....