ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the decision dated 26-12-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, whereunder he denied exemption under Notification No. 116/69 to the appellants.
2. Appellants are manufacturing goods called ‘Furagyl Suspension’ containing an ingredient ‘Metronidazole Benzoate’ falling under Chapter 14E of the Tariff. The respondents claimed exemption under Notification No. 116/69, dated 3-5-1969. The Additional Collector who heard the matter did not agree with the contentions raised by the assessee on the ground that classification list indicated that exemption under Notification No. 116/69 was claimed for ‘Furagyl Suspension’. This classification list was filed for the year 1981-82, whereas no classification list if any filed by the appellant for material year 1985-86. He also held that Notification No. 116/69 grants conditional exemption, therefore while availing the said exemption, it was mandatory for the party to disclose the information data to the department to ensure that they had satisfied the conditions of the notification in order to avail of the exemption. The facts are that along with the ingredient Metronidazole contained which was also added in Medicine Furagyl Suspension that was used mainly as an ester so that even children can consume the tablet.
3. The matter is not res Integra. Under similar circumstances in respect of the same ingredient the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Aaron Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. -1990 (47) E.L.T. 475 had held that just because an ester is added to the ingredient it does not entitle the department to deny the exemption to the benefit of Notification No. 116/69. The facts in the instant case are similar to the case of Aaron Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Moreover the Collector (Appeals) in respect of another appeal filed by M/s. Fairdeal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. has held in favour of the assessee in the assessee in the Order No. A-1980/BI-369/82, under similar circumstances. We are therefore of the view that the assessee’s case has to be accepted and the department’s case cannot be accepted. Hence the appeal is disposed of in favour of the assessee.