Judgment:
1. The appellants filed the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.468-CE/DLH/92, dated 16-9-1992. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of medicines flailing under sub-heading 3003.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. One of the medicine manufactured by the appellant is Metadec 25 nandrolone decanoate injections B.P. The appellants have mentioned medicine as filled up in ampoule and they are marketing the medicine along with disposable syringes and disposable needles which area packed along with the medicine in blister packing.
The Modvat credit on disposable syringe and needle packed along with the injections has been denied by the department on the ground that they are not used in or in relation to manufacture of medicine and is not a packing material.
2. Ld. Counsel M.P. Dev Nath appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the medicine is filled up in a ampoule and the duty paid bought out disposable syringes and disposable needles are packed in blister packing on which the appellant's label and the brand name area printed. A set of ampoule containing the medicine, disposable syringe and needle packed is put up in a carton with literature. In other words the medicine filled up in ampoule is first manufactured and put up in set with syringe and needle and then packed in blister packing to render the product marketable to the consumer. The process of putting the injection along with the disposable syringe and needle in the blister packing printed with the label and brand name of the ^appellant would amount to manufacture in terms of Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
3. He further stated that the appellants were availing of the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. The appellants in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57G have filed a declaration dated 13-12-1989 inter alia claiming the disposable syringes and needles as inputs in respect of their medicine Metadec 25 nandrolone decanoate injections B.P.4. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in case Heal Well Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 446. Ld.
Counsel submitted that in this case the Modvat credit on the droppers supplied with pediatric drops is allowed by the Tribunal.
6. In the present case the appellants are availing facility of Modvat credit in respect of disposable syringe and needle along with the injections manufactured by them which is objected to by the respondent.
The appellants are manufacturers of medicine i.e. Medatec 25. That medicine was filled up in ampoules allot and thereafter they put this ampoules with the syringe and needle and then packed in blister packing. We have seen the declaration filed by the appellants whereby they have declared the syringe and needle as packing material. The process of manufacture and packing of medicine in question completes when the medicine is put in ampoule and that ampoule is a complete product in itself and can be marketable independently. Syringe and the needle cannot be said to be packing material. We have considered the judgment of the Tribunal in Heal Well Pharmaceuticals (supra). In that judgment, the Tribunal observed that the department dos not appear to have challenged the order of Collector (Appeals) where same dropper has been allowed Modvat credit. If that be so, denial of Modvat credit in this case would amount to discriminatory term leading to unfair competition among similarly placed manufacturers. Regarding dropper the Tribunal observed that dropper is connected with the administration of prescribed dose of drops and it is not complementary gift along with bottle of dropper. In a sense as functionally designed it is a detachable component of the bottle containing dropper. Hence even otherwise it can be considered as a detachable component of the bottle but supplied separately.
7. In the present case, the syringe and needle packed with the final product cannot be said to attachable component of the final product.
The final product i.e. Medatec 25 filled in ampoules is an independently marketable item. In these circumstances, we find that the syringe and needle is not a packing material as declared in the declaration filed under Section 57G of the Central Excise Rules and also we find that syringe and needle is not an input used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.