ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The appellants are absent. Accordingly, we have heard learned DR and gone through the impugned orders.
2. Notification No. 48/77, dated 1-4-1977 exempts physician’s samples of medicines. The appellants filed a classification list claiming the benefit under the said notification as regards the physician’s samples. Objection was raised by the Revenue that said samples were rubber stamped with the words “Physician’s sample, not for sale”, which does not satisfy condition 3 of the notification. On the other hand, the appellants’ contention was that the said notification only stipulated that the packing labels should be marked with the above word and does not lay down as to whether the marking is to be in printing or rubber stamp. The above contention was not accepted by the authorities below, who confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 17,671.50 against the appellants.
3. After considering the issue involved, we find that condition 3 of the notification in question is only to the effect that the word “physician’s sample, not to be sold” are required to be marked on the label clearly and conspicuously. There is no requirement in the said condition of that words should be printed on the label. No manner of marking the said word has been laid down in the said notification. Further the observation of the lower authorities that the appellants has not shown that the goods in question were actually delivered as physician’s sample are not in accordance with the said notification inasmuch as there is no such requirement of the end use stipulated in the said notification. As such, we do not find any merits in Revenue’s reasoning. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and appeal fallowed.
(Dictated in Court)