1999 (8) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellants desired disposal of the appeals on merits. 2. We have heard Shri Deepak Kumar, ld. DR for the revenue. 3. The appellants manufacture medicaments. Under the related laws they were required to draw samples for quality control purposes and also for testing purposes. Some of the samples were retained in the factory and some were sent outside. Notification No. 171/70-C.E. as amended .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng to Rs. 7,873/- was demanded. The Collector after hearing the assessees confirmed the demand but did not choose to impose a penalty. The appeal is against this order. 4. Before the Collector the assessees had claimed that samples were packed in a form different from trade packing and that they were marked as samples not to be sold . The Collector s findings against the assessees occurred in p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n packets of 10 tablets as well as of 4 tablets. After describing the various packings, the final entry in the classification lists was quality control samples of all above products for laboratory purposes as per drug rules. Against this entry the benefit of the cited notification was claimed. 6. On reading the classification lists it becomes clear that the Collector had not read the lists in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X