Common parlance controls excise classification, keeping toilet and beautification products outside Ayurvedic medicine despite medicinal ingredients.

Excise classification of Dant Manjan, Surma and Kajal turns on commercial identity, common parlance and essential character rather than medicinal claims alone. Dant Manjan is treated as a tooth powder and therefore as a toilet article falling under Tariff Item 68, with no Ayurvedic exemption. Surma is discussed as a marketed medicine and treated as an Ayurvedic/patent or proprietary product under Tariff Item 14E. Kajal is described as a beautification product, not shown to be used for treatment or in authoritative Ayurvedic formulation, and is placed under Tariff Item 68. The note emphasises that medicinal ingredients do not convert a cosmetic or toilet article into an Ayurvedic medicine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Dant Manjan was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 or entitled to exemption as an Ayurvedic drug or medicine under Notification No. 62/78-C.E. dated 1-3-1978; (ii) whether Surma was a patent or proprietary medicine excluded as an Ayurvedic medicine; (iii) whether Kajal was classifiable as a patent or proprietary medicine excluded as an Ayurvedic medicine, or whether it fell under Tariff Item 68.

Issue (i): Whether Dant Manjan was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 or entitled to exemption as an Ayurvedic drug or medicine under Notification No. 62/78-C.E. dated 1-3-1978.

Analysis: The goods were examined in the light of their commercial identity and use. Dant Manjan was treated as a tooth powder and, applying the common parlance understanding of such goods, was regarded as a toilet article rather than a medicine. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that medicinal claims or Ayurvedic ingredients did not alter the essential character of the product when it was used for dental cleansing.

Conclusion: Dant Manjan was held to fall under Tariff Item 68 and was not entitled to exemption. The finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Surma was a patent or proprietary medicine excluded as an Ayurvedic medicine.

Analysis: Surma was considered in the context of its composition, trade understanding, and the material showing its connection with the manufacturer. The Tribunal accepted that the product was marketed as medicine and, following its earlier decision, treated it as exclusively Ayurvedic despite the use of some pharmacopoeal ingredients in small quantity.

Conclusion: Surma was held to be a patent or proprietary medicine classifiable under Tariff Item 14E and excluded as an Ayurvedic medicine. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Kajal was classifiable as a patent or proprietary medicine excluded as an Ayurvedic medicine, or whether it fell under Tariff Item 68.

Analysis: Kajal was found to be used for beautification and not shown on the record to be a substance used for treatment of disease or having curative power. It was neither established as manufactured according to authoritative Ayurvedic formulations nor shown in common parlance to be a medicine or drug. The statutory definitions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were found not to bring it within Ayurvedic medicine or drug.

Conclusion: Kajal was held not to be a patent or proprietary medicine or Ayurvedic drug, and it was classified under Tariff Item 68. The finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in respect of Surma, while the classification and duty liability relating to Dant Manjan and Kajal were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, the essential character and common parlance understanding of the product govern; a product used as a toilet article or for beautification is not treated as an Ayurvedic medicine merely because it contains medicinal ingredients or is claimed to have therapeutic value.

---