2003 (7) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of 'Brahmi Oil' as an ayurvedic product under tariff Heading 3003-31 with NIL rate of duty.
2. Dispute regarding the affixing of the brand name 'Ramtirth' affecting the classification under Heading 3003.31.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the classification of 'Brahmi Oil' as an ayurvedic product under tariff Heading 3003-31 with NIL rate of duty. The Commissioner agreed that the product is an ayurvedic medicine manufactured according to specified formulae, supported by opinions from various authorities. The order highlighted the specific heading for such ayurvedic medicines and the changes in the Central Excise Tariff Structure, leading to the classification under sub-heading 3003.31. However, the issue of using the brand name 'Ramtirth' was not discussed by the Commissioner, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

2. The second issue concerns the impact of affixing the brand name 'Ramtirth' on the classification under Heading 3003.31. The Revenue argued that the brand name dis-entitles the assessee from claiming NIL duty under this heading, suggesting classification under the residuary Heading 3003.39 with an 8% duty. The appeal contended that budgetary changes post-1994 affect the benefit of certain notifications for branded ayurvedic products. The debate centered on whether 'Ramtirth' is a brand name or house name, with the Revenue emphasizing the need for a decision on this aspect.

3. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, with the Revenue advocating for a remand to examine the brand name issue. The Consultant cited legal precedents and emphasized that the use of a house name like 'Ramtirth' should not affect the classification under the relevant heading. Various certificates and letters were presented to support the contention that 'Ramtirth' is a house name and the product is marketed primarily under the generic name 'Brahmi Oil.'

4. After thorough deliberation, the Tribunal acknowledged the product as an ayurvedic medicine marketed under the generic name. However, the ambiguity surrounding the nature of 'Ramtirth' as a brand or house name necessitated a remand for further examination by the Commissioner. The Tribunal leaned towards remand due to conflicting information and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the status of 'Ramtirth.' The decision was made to allow the appeal for remand to address the brand name issue and its impact on classification, affirming the classification of the product as an ayurvedic item.