9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellants or under sub-heading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as per the revenue. 3.The appellants filed the classification for Hajmola Candy under sub-heading No. 3003.30 and claimed benefit of exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 32/89, dated 1-3-1989. The Assistant Collector classified the product under sub-heading No. 1704.90 as sugar confectionary and confirmed the demand accordingly. He observed that Hajmola Candy contained approximately 75% sugar and the rest of the contents were used only to develop taste and the method of preparation was also not mentioned in any book on Ayurveda. While upholding the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) observed that the appellants have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an Ayurvedic medicine classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30. He referred to the relevant para in that judgement to show that ingredients of Hajmola Candy and Swad are one and the same. While assailing the impugned order he said that Collector was not right in taking different view on the ground that appellants have not produced any evidence to show that Hajmola Candy was commonly known as Ayurvedic medicine and no expert opinion has been placed on record in support of their contention. He said that the very fact that the appellants have obtained drug licence to manufacture this item as Ayurvedic medicine by Drug Control Authorities of Uttar Pradesh answers the test of common parlance as it was held in the case of Leucoplast (India) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (h) of that Act patent or proprietary medicine does not include a medicine which is administered by parental route and also a formulation included in the authoritative books as specified in clause (a). Hence the reasoning of the Assistant Collector that though the ingredients are mentioned in the authoritative books but the process of manufacture of Hajmola has not been mentioned in the authoritative books of Ayurveda is wrong and contrary to the provisions of Section 3(h) of the Drugs Cosmetics Act, 1940. He said that the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in observing that the goods are not medicament in the absence of clinical test report. The goods are not scheduled drugs but only sold over the counters and products are used in treatment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it should be recognised as medicine in a standard Ayurvedic book or be so proved by clinical tests or prescribed for particular disease he referred to the following decisions :- 1. Collector of Central Excise v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1989 (42) E.L.T. 33] 2. Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. [1988 (35) E.L.T. 424] and 3. Collector of Central Excise v. Pharmasia Pvt. Ltd. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 658]. Referring to the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd., Naini [1987 (27) E.L.T. 671] and in the case of Sri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. Another v. C.C.E. Patna, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 844, he said that it was held in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
