2006 (12) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dents herein - whether under CET sub-heading 3003.39 as a Ayurvedic medicament, attracting duty at the rate of 8%, as claimed by the manufacturers and upheld by the Commissioner, or under CET sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments other than those medicines which are exclusively Ayurvedic......, attracting duty at the rate of 15% for certain period and 16% thereafter, as contended by the Revenue. The period in dispute is December 1996 to February 2000. 2.According to the Revenue the assessee has wrongly claimed the product as Ayurvedic Medicine for the reason that the product owed its origin to Chinese traditional medicine, and the formulations, brand name, logo, product goodwill etc. had been received under licence from M/s. Haw Par He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lusively Ayurvedic. 3.We have heard both sides. 4.We note that the notice issued to the respondents did not allege that the ingredients used in the product do not find mention in authoritative texts/books specified in the first schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In fact, the ingredients are mentioned in such authoritative texts/books. The ingredients are Kapoor, Pudina Tail, Lavang Tail, Dalchini Tail, Kjuput Tail, as seen from the declaration furnished by the Respondents to the FDA authorities for manufacture under Ayurvedic licence and the ingredients find mention in authoritative texts like Sar Siddhi-Siddha Prayoga, Bhavaprakash Nighantu, Chunekar Commentary etc. All the ingredients are natural products or extracted from n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dispute in the present case contains natural ingredients, all of which are mentioned in the authoritative texts on Ayurveda and are manufactured under licence to manufacture Ayurvedic Medicaments under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. The argument of the Revenue that the product is not an Ayurvedic medicine for the reason that it is not commonly known or understood as one, is not tenable as the burden lies upon the department to show that the product is not popularly known or is not so understood, and the burden has not been discharged by the Revenue which is erroneously seeking to shift the burden to the assessee/manufacturer. 5.In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the classification of Tiger Balm under CET Sub-heading 3003.39 as Ay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X