Ayurvedic classification remains unchanged where manufacturer marks appear on labels but product names match authoritative texts.

Ayurvedic medicines do not become patent or proprietary medicaments merely because the manufacturer's name, logo or symbol appears on the label, where the products are sold under names found in authoritative Ayurvedic texts. Applying earlier Tribunal reasoning and the Board's circular, CESTAT held that such label features alone do not alter the essential Ayurvedic character of the goods. The classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore maintained, and the revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the products were patent or proprietary medicaments falling under Chapter Heading 30.03 and liable to duty under Notification No. 8/94, or whether they remained Ayurvedic medicines entitled to the nil rate of duty.

Analysis: The products bore the manufacturer's name and certain symbols, but the medicines were also identified by names found in authoritative Ayurvedic texts. The earlier decision of the Tribunal in the respondent's own case, following the Board's circular, had held that where Ayurvedic medicines are sold under the names specified in authoritative texts, the presence of the manufacturer's mark, logo, or symbol on the label does not by itself make the products patent or proprietary medicaments. That reasoning applied directly to the present dispute, and the revenue appeal raised no sufficient ground to distinguish it.

Conclusion: The products were not shown to lose their character as Ayurvedic medicines merely because the manufacturer's name or symbols appeared on the labels. The classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the revenue's challenge failed.

---