2003 (3) TMI 112 - SC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 75 of 1994 for duty exemption on Ayurvedic preparation sold under specified name.

Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Benefit of Notification:
The appeals in this case were against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 75 of 1994 for duty exemption on Ayurvedic preparations sold under specified names. The central issue was whether the appellants, manufacturing Maha Bhringaraj oil, were entitled to this benefit. The Tribunal had ruled against the appellants, denying them the benefit of the Notification.

2. Compliance with Formula and Name Specification:
The appellants were manufacturing Ayurvedic preparation in compliance with the formula prescribed in authoritative books. However, they were selling the product under the name "Maha Bhringol," which was not the specified name in the books or pharmacopoeia. The appellants argued that using additional words like "Maha Bhringol" should not disqualify them from the Notification's benefit, as it was not a trade or brand name, and they had no proprietary rights over it.

3. Interpretation of Trade Notice:
The appellants relied on a Trade Notice to support their case, which provided examples to clarify the application of the Notification. They contended that their case fell under the situation where the product was sold with additional words, similar to the examples provided in the Trade Notice. However, the Court emphasized that the crucial factor was how the product was sold, irrespective of whether the additional words were a brand or trade name.

4. Product Labeling and Sales Name:
Upon reviewing the product wrappers and classification list, it was evident that the product was being sold as "Maha Bhringol," with "Maha Bhringraj Oil" mentioned in smaller type. Despite the appellants' arguments, the Court emphasized that selling the product under the name "Maha Bhringol" did not align with the names specified in the Ayurvedic books or pharmacopoeias, rendering them ineligible for the Notification's benefit.

5. Judgment and Dismissal of Appeals:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no fault in the Tribunal's judgments and dismissed the appeals. The Court concluded that as long as the product was sold under the name "Maha Bhringol," deviating from the specified names in the relevant books, the appellants were not entitled to the duty exemption under Notification No. 75 of 1994. The decision was made without any order as to costs, upholding the Tribunal's rulings.