1999 (9) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of products "Huny Herb", "Churyum drops", and "Tazza" under Central Excise Tariff sub-headings 3003.30 or 1704.90.

1. The appeal considered whether the products "Huny Herb", "Churyum drops", and "Tazza" should be classified as ayurvedic medicaments under sub-heading 3003.30 or as sugar confectionery under sub-heading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector determined that these products did not meet the definition of ayurvedic medicament based on the report of the Chemical Examiner and marketability, leading to a demand confirmation of Rs. 66,592.73. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) further analyzed the products, noting their absence in ayurvedic texts and common trade parlance, ultimately classifying them under sub-heading 1704.90 based on the judgment in a previous case.

2. Despite multiple opportunities, no representation was made for the appellants during the hearings, prompting the Tribunal to proceed with the case. The matter dated back to the period between October 1989 and March 1990, and after considering the absence of representation, the Tribunal decided to address the case on its merits, with input from the Departmental Representative.

3. The Tribunal examined the products in question, namely Huny Herb, Churyum drops, and Tazza, identified as sugar preparations with minor ingredients in the form of Lozenge. These products were alleged to be sugar confectionery rather than ayurvedic medicaments, as they were consumed by ordinary individuals for general use and not for specific ailments, being sold in regular confectionery shops.

4. The Commissioner of Central Excise highlighted that the products were not intended for sick individuals but for everyday consumption, available in general stores rather than pharmacies based on prescriptions. The classification was determined by the common usage of the products, as they were primarily consumed for taste alteration rather than medicinal purposes, lacking evidence of being used for specific ailments or prescribed by ayurvedic practitioners.

5. Detailed reasoning was provided by the Commissioner as to why the products did not qualify as medicaments under the relevant tariff heading and notification, emphasizing the common consumer perception and usage of the products in question.

6. The appellants failed to provide evidence regarding the specific medicinal use of the products, further supporting the classification as sugar confectionery rather than ayurvedic medicaments.

7. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal endorsed the interpretation that in excise matters, the popular meaning of terms used by consumers should prevail over scientific definitions. The Court's agreement with the Tribunal's stance on distinguishing between daily use items and prescribed medicines reinforced the classification of the products based on their nature, usage, and consumer perception, leading to the rejection of the appeal and upholding the classification under sub-heading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.