2004 (8) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the exemption granted to ayurvedic medicaments under Notification No. 75/94.
2. Treatment of ayurvedic medicines manufactured by the appellants compared to other manufacturers.
3. Application of the definition of patent or proprietary medicines to ayurvedic medicines.
4. Alleged differential treatment by the department towards the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The issue at hand involves the interpretation of the exemption granted to ayurvedic medicaments under Notification No. 75/94. The appellants argue that their ayurvedic medicines, manufactured in accordance with authoritative texts, should not be subjected to duty based on a circular clarifying that the exemption applies even if the manufacturer's mark is present. The contention is supported by the budget circular of 1996-1997, which continued the exemption under a new sub-heading. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and circulars, rules in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the government's intent not to charge duty on such medicines.

2. Another key issue is the treatment of ayurvedic medicines manufactured by the appellants compared to other manufacturers. The appellants highlight that only their products were deemed non-conforming by the department, despite following the authoritative texts. The Tribunal, after examining the case records and the Board's circular, concludes that singling out the appellants for different treatment is unjustified. The Tribunal notes that as long as the medicines are sold under specified names in authoritative texts, the presence of the manufacturer's mark does not affect the exemption eligibility. Consequently, the impugned order demanding duty from the appellants is set aside.

3. The application of the definition of patent or proprietary medicines to ayurvedic medicines is also discussed. The appellants argue that such definitions should not be directly applied to ayurvedic medicines. The Tribunal, while not explicitly addressing this argument, considers the broader context of the exemption provisions and the authoritative texts' significance in determining conformity, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of the exemption criteria.

4. Lastly, the issue of alleged differential treatment by the department towards the appellants compared to other manufacturers is raised. The appellants contend that similar ayurvedic medicines from other manufacturers were not subjected to duty despite the presence of their respective marks. The Tribunal, in its analysis, highlights the importance of uniform treatment and consistency in applying exemption provisions. By noting that all other manufacturers were not subjected to duty, the Tribunal concludes that the appellants should not be treated differently and allows the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.