Ayurvedic medicament exemption upheld where preservative ingredients did not change the product's essential therapeutic character.

A proprietary Ayurvedic medicament remained eligible for excise exemption because the additional non-Ayurvedic ingredients were used only as preservatives and had no therapeutic or prophylactic function. The Court read Chapter 30 to require that a medicament be mixed or compounded for therapeutic or prophylactic use, and held that non-medicinal additives used solely for preservation do not alter the product's Ayurvedic character. It rejected the approach that any non-Ayurvedic ingredient automatically disqualifies the product, treating that view as a misdirection in law. The product was therefore regarded as an exclusively Ayurvedic medicament, and the exemption was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product Kafbin, though containing certain non-Ayurvedic preservative ingredients, remained an exclusively Ayurvedic medicament entitled to exemption under the relevant excise notification.

Analysis: The product was found to be a proprietary medicament compounded from Ayurvedic ingredients, and the additional ingredients were only preservatives without therapeutic or prophylactic function. The definition of medicament under Chapter 30 was read as requiring ingredients to be mixed or compounded for therapeutic or prophylactic use; non-medicinal additives used only for preservation do not change the character of an Ayurvedic medicament. The contrary approach of treating any non-Ayurvedic ingredient as disqualifying was held to be a misdirection in law.

Conclusion: The product remained an exclusively Ayurvedic medicament and was entitled to the excise exemption; the impugned order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: An Ayurvedic medicament does not cease to be exclusively Ayurvedic merely because it contains non-Ayurvedic ingredients added only as preservatives or for other non-therapeutic, non-prophylactic purposes.

---