ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The appellants herein are manufacturers of P & P Medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing exemption on clinical samples to the extent of 4% of the value of duty paid on clearances during the preceding month in accordance with the provisions of Notification 48/77-C.E., dated 1-4-1977. The Department was of the view that since the products in dispute namely, Broncare Syrup 60 ml. and Broncare-5 Cough Syrup 60 ml. had the same packing, both for commercial supply as well as for clinical samples, the benefit of notification above mentioned was not available. The clinical samples bore the words “Physician samples not to be sold” and also, maximum retail price was not printed on the clinical samples. The Assistant Collector accepted the claim of the appellants that they were entitled to the benefit of the notification. However, on appeal filed by the Revenue before the Collector (Appeals), the lower appellate authority has accepted the contention of the Department that since the clinical samples are not packed distinctly from the commercial supply of the two products in question, the benefit of notification is not available. Hence, this appeal by the assessees.
2. We have heard Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Counsel and Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR. We note that the very same issue on interpretation of Notification 48/77-C.E. came up for consideration by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 829 (Tribunal). In that case also, the samples, clinical packs and of commercial packs were packed identically and the clinical samples bore the markings “Physician samples not to be sold.” The Tribunal held that clinical samples of the medicines in dispute are not eligible for exemption because they were not packed distinctly from the commercial packs, minor difference notwithstanding. The ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the present case and hence, following the ratio thereof, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.