Ayurvedic medicament classification requires therapeutic use, while cosmetic hair preparations fall under Chapter 33 despite herbal ingredients.

A product is not an Ayurvedic medicament merely because it contains ingredients found in Ayurvedic texts; it must satisfy the therapeutic or prophylactic test under Chapter 30 and not fall within Chapter 33 as a preparation for use on the hair. On the facts, the goods were treated as hair preparations under Heading 33.05 because their marketing, labels and presentation were cosmetic rather than medicinal. The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the manufacturer had filed a declaration and suppression with intent to evade duty was not established; penalty was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned products were classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as preparations for use on the hair under Chapter 33; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable and penalties were imposable.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned products were classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as preparations for use on the hair under Chapter 33.

Analysis: The definition of medicament under Note 2 to Chapter 30 requires therapeutic or prophylactic use. Mere use of ingredients mentioned in authoritative Ayurvedic texts is not sufficient to treat a product as a medicament. Notes 1(d) and 2 to Chapter 33 exclude Chapter 30 coverage where the goods are preparations of Chapter 33, even if they possess subsidiary curative or prophylactic value. On the facts, the products were marketed and used on hair, with labels and depictions indicating cosmetic presentation, and the evidence produced did not establish that they were mainly used as medicines for treatment of specific ailments.

Conclusion: The products were held classifiable under Heading 33.05 as preparations for use on the hair and not as Ayurvedic medicaments.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable and penalties were imposable.

Analysis: The appellants had filed a declaration in April 1994 describing themselves as manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines and enclosing a list of the impugned products, so non-disclosure or suppression of manufacture was not established. In the absence of suppression with intent to evade duty, the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be used for the extended period. For the same reason, penalty was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held not invocable and the penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The classification issue was decided against the appellants, but the demand for the extended period and the penalties did not survive; the appeals were disposed of with partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A product is not an Ayurvedic medicament merely because it contains ingredients mentioned in Ayurvedic texts; it must satisfy the therapeutic or prophylactic test and not fall within a Chapter 33 preparation, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---