1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE REFERENCE NO. 2 OF 1995 The Commissioner of Central Excise ) Mumbai-IV, 115 New Central Excise ) Bldg. M.K. Road, Churchgate, ) Mumbai 400 020. ).. Applicant Versus M/s. Healwell Pharmaceuticals,Bombay ..Respondent Mr. P.S.Jetly with Mr. Rajinder Kumar,Advocates for the applicant. Mr.Prakash Shah with Mr. J.Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal,Advocates for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 10th June,2009. JUDGMENT: (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) 1. To state in brief, the respondents are manufacturers of Pharmaceutical product falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They inter alia manufacture Pediatric drop for children. They filed declaration under Modvat Scheme declaring the plastic dropper supplied with the bottle containing drops as an input used in or in relation to manufacture of final product i.e. Pediatric drops. 2 However, the department objected this on the grounds that this droppers are separately kept in the cartons sealed bottle of the Pediatric drop. These droppers are neither used in the manufacture of pediatric drop nor used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. 2. Show cause notice was issued to the Respondents and the case was adjudicated upon. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit of duty paid on plastic droppers. Appeal against the said Order of the Assistant Commissioner was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide his order-In Appeal No.GS/368/B.I/93/11.5.1992. 3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents filed Appeal No.E/473-93-BOM before the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). That appeal was allowed by the order dated 1.10.1993. The Revenue filed Reference Application before the Tribunal. . The Tribunal framed the following question:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, based on their interpretation of the decision of the Apex Court in Eastern Paper Industries 1989 (43) ELT 201(SC) and Jay Engineering Works ) 3 and having regard to the concept of the value addition envisaged in the modvat scheme, is correct in holding that plastic dropper packed in the pack of pediatric drops and marketed at the factory gate in that condition could be construed to be an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, as laid down in Rule 57A of central Excise Rules, 1944 ?” 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Similar question was raised in Central Excise Reference No.2 of 2002 (Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Okasa Ltd.) and after hearing the parties and by giving detailed reasons in a separate Judgment, we have answered the Reference in affirmative. The present case is squarely covered by the said Judgment. 6. Therefore, we answer the question under reference in affirmative. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)