TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification of Ayurvedic Medicines for Excise Duty: Pre-2013 Rules</h1> <h3>Devendra Arora, Prop., Pranay Dutta Shukla, Prop., M/s Ishguru Hitech Natural Care Products, Alok Kumar Jain, Partner, Arshiya Ayurved Sansthan, M/s GTM Teleshopping Pvt. Ltd., Gurpreet Singh Johar, Anuj Agarwal, MD, Mahesh Badlani, M/s Pramod Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., M/s Telemart Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd., Ravindra Soni, M/s Teleworld Marketing, Rajiv Bhatia, Sanjay Marwal Versus CCE&ST, Indore And CCE&ST, Indore Versus M/s G.R. Herbal Extractions, Rahul Marwal, M/s Teleworld Marketing, M/s Telemart Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Devendra Arora, Prop., Pranay Dutta Shukla, Prop., M/s Ishguru Hitech Natural Care Products, Alok Kumar Jain, Partner, Arshiya Ayurved Sansthan, M/s GTM ... Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 49/2008-CE (NT) for Ayurvedic medicines under Section 4A of Central Excise Act before 01.03.2013.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI considered cross-appeals filed by the appellant and the Department against orders by the Adjudicating Authority. The issue in all appeals was identical, related to the classification of proprietary Ayurvedic medicines for Excise duty payment. The dispute concerned whether such medicines sold with brand names were liable for Excise duty on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and noted that the dispute only pertained to Patent and Proprietary (P&P) Ayurvedic medicines, not classical Ayurvedic medicines.The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 49/2008-CE (NT) and its subsequent amendments, particularly focusing on the amendments made in 2011 and 2013. The Notification specified goods subject to assessment on the basis of MRP under Section 4A. The Tribunal observed that prior to 01.03.2013, there was ambiguity regarding the applicability of MRP assessment for P&P Ayurvedic medicines. The Revenue argued for MRP assessment for all Ayurvedic medicaments even before 01.03.2013, while the assessee contended that before this date, P&P Ayurvedic medicines were not covered under Section 4A.The Tribunal carefully examined the amendments in the Notification and concluded that the original entry and the 2011 amendment only brought classical Ayurvedic medicines under MRP assessment. The Tribunal found no justification to include P&P Ayurvedic medicines for assessment under Section 4A from 24.03.2011. However, from 01.03.2013, all Ayurvedic medicines, including P&P medicines with brand names, were included for duty under Section 4A. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside all demands for Excise duty before 01.03.2013 due to the absence of a specific entry in the Notification regarding P&P Ayurvedic medicines.The Tribunal disposed of all appeals based on the above findings, directing the Adjudicating Authority to re-decide minor issues in some appeals after providing a fair hearing to the parties. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Notification No. 49/2008-CE (NT) concerning the assessment of Ayurvedic medicines under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act before 01.03.2013, resolving the dispute between the appellant and the Revenue.
TaxTMI 