ORDER : Order of Supreme Court 1. The appeal is dismissed. Impugned Order of Tribunal, Lupin Laboratories P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (2002) 139 ELT 366 (Tri). (Before Mr Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical) and Mr G.N. Srinivasan Member (Judicial)] The Judgment of the Tribunal was delivered by 2. Mr Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical) - The appellant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. Among these are rifampicin, ethambutol, isoniazid and pyrazinamide. Each of these medicaments finds use in the treatment of tuberculosis. All of them, except rifampicin, were exempted by entry 1 of the table of Notification 75/94 (September, 1994 to September, 1999). The entry exempted from duty all formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 as amended from time to time. These three were listed as bulk drugs, to be used in the National Tuberculosis Eradication Programme, in the First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order. Rifampicin at the relevant time was partially exempted from duty by Notification 30/88. 3. Tuberculosis patients derive greater benefit from treatment by combination of the drugs used, than from treatment by a single medicine. The Office Memorandum dated 4-7-1995 of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of Government of India explains that, in order to maintain the continuity and regularity of intake of these four drugs, which are the main anti-tuberculosis drugs, a single pack containing a day requirement of these drugs with the distinguishable identity has been designed. This line of treatment is also recommended by the World Health Organization. In accordance with this accepted medical wisdom, and to ensure appropriate injection of these tablets therefore appropriated the day by tuberculosis patients, the appellant marketed two combinations of these drugs. The first, called AKT-4 (Anti-Koch Treatment) consisted of a combination one dose of ethambutol two doses of pyrazinamide and one dose of rifampicin. Rifampicin was coloured distinctly from the other so that it could be taken early in the morning, as recommended. Another combination AKT-3 comprises of one doze of ethambutol and one dose of rifampicin. The notices proposed denial of exemption Notifications Nos. 75/94 and 30/88 on the combination, demanded duty consequently payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand. Hence this appeal. 4. The manufacturer filed a list for classification of goods under Heading 30.10, with the benefits of Notifications Nos. Another combination AKT-3 comprises of one doze of ethambutol and one dose of rifampicin. The notices proposed denial of exemption Notifications Nos. 75/94 and 30/88 on the combination, demanded duty consequently payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand. Hence this appeal. 4. The manufacturer filed a list for classification of goods under Heading 30.10, with the benefits of Notifications Nos. 75/94 and 30/88 clarified that excise duty will be paid on the proportional assessable value of rifampicin capsule of 10% by security under Notification 30/88, claiming that the others were exempted under Notification No. 75/94. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner have both relied on the provisions of Note 5 to Chapter 30 to support their conclusion. This note provides, in relation to drugs under Heading 30.03, that "conversion of powder into tablets or capsules, labelling or re-labelling of containers intended for consumers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the products marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture". The argument, although not clearly expressed, appear to be that as a result of packing two or three separate medicaments together, a new product emerges, which is not covered by the exemption contained in neither of the two notifications and is therefore liable to duty. 6. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioners (Appeals) both have explained how the processes that the appellant undertook amounted to "any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, and therefore amounts to manufacture". The Commissioner (Appeals) accepts explicitly, that each of the products, prior to its being packed in the manner that we have explained, was marketable. He says "while it is not denied that tablets/capsules manufactured by them are separately marketable and marketed, but by putting them in one pack, all the four tablets become marketable at one and the same time together". This logic is specious. If each of these drugs was earlier marketable considered on its own, they were all-marketable at one time. The products which were earlier not marketable do not now become marketable. In its decision in Lakme Lever Ltd. v. CCE, (2001 (127) E.L.T. 790), the Tribunal had considered the nature and scope of Note 4 of Chapter 43 of the Tariff, relating to cosmetic products of heading 33.03, 33.04 and 33.05. The note is identically worded as Note 5 of Chapter 30. In its decision in Lakme Lever Ltd. v. CCE, (2001 (127) E.L.T. 790), the Tribunal had considered the nature and scope of Note 4 of Chapter 43 of the Tariff, relating to cosmetic products of heading 33.03, 33.04 and 33.05. The note is identically worded as Note 5 of Chapter 30. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that "any other treatment" referred to in that note must result in conferring upon the product which emerges any attribute of marketability to the consumer, which it considered to be retail consumer, which that product did not possess before it was subjected to that treatment. That same consideration would apply to the note now under consideration by us. As we have noted it is identically worded (except for the tariff headings under consideration) as Note 4 to Chapter 33. Since each of the products was marketable on its own, putting them all together did not confer on them any attribute of marketability that it did not possess earlier. Each of the tablets continued to have a separate identity, which was not submerged in the new identity that the assembling of combination of tablets acquired. Such a combination did not in fact require any identity. It was, very simply, a matter of convenience for the customers. 7. It is also relevant to note that these four or three tablets were initially packed, after their manufacture into this combination packing. It is not as if they were first packed into separate packing and thereafter drawn from this packing and put into the packing presently under consideration. If the Commissioner (Appeals)s logic is to be adopted, it would mean that every manufacturer of pharmaceutical products or cosmetic products has to pay duty twice on any one product first when it comes off the production line and the second when it is packed. This, surely, is not the intention of the law makers. The intention which appears to us is to ensure that the value addition, which is sometimes substantiated, which results as a consequence of packing the product into a retail pack is levied to duty. Each of the processes referred to in these notes, conversion of powder into tablets; labelling or re-labelling of containers intended for a consumer; repacking from bulk pack to retail pack obviously results in or facilitates sale of the product to the retail consumer. Each of the processes referred to in these notes, conversion of powder into tablets; labelling or re-labelling of containers intended for a consumer; repacking from bulk pack to retail pack obviously results in or facilitates sale of the product to the retail consumer. The adoption of any other treatment referred to in each of these notes would be such treatment that would render the product marketable to a consumer. It is therefore not possible for us to uphold the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that a new product has emerged which was not entitled to benefit of either of the notifications. 8. We have therefore not considered it necessary to deal with the other contentions of the counsel for the appellant that the benefit of notification in any case would be available. 9. Appeal allowed Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief, if permitted by law.