2003 (2) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Vicco products under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to issue a fresh order on classification.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in the Baidyanath case.
4. Consideration of additional ingredients in Ayurvedic products.
5. Common parlance test for classifying products.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Vicco Products:
The primary issue revolves around whether Vicco Vajradanti (powder and paste), Vicco Turmeric Skin Cream, and Vicco Vajradanti Sugar Free should be classified as Ayurvedic medicines or as cosmetics/toilet preparations under the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents claimed that their products were Ayurvedic medicines under CET sub-heading 3003.31, attracting a Nil rate of duty. The Revenue, however, proposed classification under CET sub-heading 3306.10 and Chapter Heading 33.04, attracting higher duties.

2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner:
The respondents challenged the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction to issue a fresh classification order, arguing that the classification issue had already been settled by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. The Revenue contended that the Supreme Court decision did not restrict reclassification for the period after 28-2-1986.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in the Baidyanath Case:
The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shri Baidyanath Ayurveda Bhavan Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, which classified "Dant Manjan Lal" as a cosmetic rather than an Ayurvedic medicine. The Revenue argued that this decision should apply to Vicco products, as they were similar in nature.

4. Consideration of Additional Ingredients:
The Revenue argued that the addition of ingredients not described in authoritative Ayurvedic texts indicated that the products were not manufactured exclusively according to prescribed formulae, disqualifying them from classification under CET sub-heading 3003.31. The respondents countered that the additional ingredients had no therapeutic value and were inert, supported by a certificate from the Food and Drugs Administration.

5. Common Parlance Test:
The Revenue contended that according to the common parlance test, the products were understood as cosmetics or toiletries rather than Ayurvedic medicaments, as they were sold in general stores without the need for a medical prescription.

Judgment Summary:

Classification of Products:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of Vicco products as Ayurvedic medicines under CET sub-heading 3003.31. It noted that the products were manufactured according to the formulae described in authoritative Ayurvedic texts and were certified by the Food and Drugs Administration as having no therapeutic value in the added ingredients. The Tribunal also referenced the CBEC Circular No. 196/30/96-CX, which supported the inclusion of inert ingredients in Ayurvedic formulations.

Jurisdiction and Finality of Previous Judgments:
The Tribunal found that the issue of classification had been conclusively settled by the Bombay High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. It held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reclassify the products as cosmetics or toilet preparations, as this would contradict the finality of the previous judgments.

Applicability of Baidyanath Case:
The Tribunal distinguished the Baidyanath case, noting that the products in question had been previously classified as Ayurvedic medicines by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. It held that the Baidyanath decision did not apply to the present case due to the specific findings and context of the earlier judgments.

Consideration of Additional Ingredients:
The Tribunal accepted the respondents' argument that the additional ingredients were inert and did not affect the classification as Ayurvedic medicines. It emphasized the importance of the certification from the Food and Drugs Administration and the guidelines provided in the CBEC Circular.

Common Parlance Test:
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on the common parlance test, emphasizing the overwhelming evidence and expert testimony that classified the products as Ayurvedic medicines. It noted that the products' availability in general stores did not detract from their classification as Ayurvedic medicaments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal. It confirmed the classification of Vicco products under CET sub-heading 3003.31, affirming their status as Ayurvedic medicines. The cross-objection was also disposed of in the same terms.