2005 (1) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the refund claim of the appellant was rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.P. medicaments. One of the product is Betadine Gargle containing alcohol. The appellants were paying Rajasthan State Excise duty on these medicines and these medicines are not liable to pay Central Excise duty. The appellants were availing the benefit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant is also that they were showing 8% excise duty in their invoices at the time of clearance of non-excisable goods by mistake, therefore, they are liable for this refund. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants were collecting this 8% as Central Excise duty and they were showing separately in the invoices. Therefore, as the appellant collected this Excise duty over and above t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X