1996 (6) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of medicines as ayurvedic or non-ayurvedic under Tariff Heading 3003.10, reliance on previous tribunal decisions, use of synthetic ingredients in manufacturing, interpretation of ayurvedic preparations.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Collector (Appeals) order dismissing the appellant's appeal regarding the classification of medicines as ayurvedic or non-ayurvedic under Tariff Heading 3003.10. The appellant argued that for a drug to be classified as ayurvedic, it should be understood in common parlance and find a place in ayurvedic treatises. The appellant contended that the synthetic nature of some ingredients used does not exclude the products from being ayurvedic medicines, citing a Supreme Court decision. The appellant highlighted that the use of certain synthetic ingredients should not disqualify the products as ayurvedic preparations. The DR argued that adding synthetics to the products removes their ayurvedic nature. The DR reiterated the reasoning in the impugned order, emphasizing the manufacturing process involving synthetic ingredients.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the rejection of the appellant's contention by the Collector (Appeals) was based on a previous Tribunal decision. However, the Supreme Court had reversed a similar decision in a specific case involving the classification of an ayurvedic balm. The Supreme Court held that the use of synthetic ingredients does not automatically disqualify a product as ayurvedic if the ingredients are known to both ayurvedic and western sciences and are refined for medicinal use. The Court clarified that the same article can have uses in both ayurvedic and western sciences, known by different names. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in considering the ingredients as synthetic, as they were known in ayurveda. The Tribunal's decision was overruled by the Supreme Court, establishing that the mere presence of synthetics does not make a product non-ayurvedic.

Based on the Supreme Court's principles, the Tribunal concluded that the products in question, including `Hero Super Balm', `Amrutanjan Cold Rub', `Amrutanjan Inhaler', and `Dragon Liquid Balm', cannot be deemed non-ayurvedic solely due to the use of some synthetic ingredients. These products are recognized in both ayurveda and western sciences, with no contrary findings in the lower authorities' orders. Since there was no evidence that the products were unknown to ayurveda, their use in manufacturing does not negate their classification as ayurvedic products. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.