Ordinary meaning of Ayurvedic preparation governs classification, and traditional formulations need not appear in a pharmacopoeia.

An Ayurvedic medicinal preparation made from recognised Ayurvedic ingredients through a traditional process was held to fall within the ordinary meaning of "Ayurvedic preparation" under Entry 3(i), even though it was not formulated from a recipe in a recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. The court treated the undefined statutory expression in its commonly understood sense, relied on the scheme of the Rules supporting traditional asavas and aristas, and rejected the view that prior government notification or pharmacopoeial mention was a necessary condition for Ayurvedic character. The product was therefore outside Entry 3(iii), and the assessee's classification claim succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed medicinal preparation, manufactured from Ayurvedic ingredients on a traditional formula not found in a recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia, was an Ayurvedic preparation falling under Entry 3(i) of the Schedule to the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, or an unclassified medicinal preparation falling under Entry 3(iii).

Analysis: The expression "Ayurvedic preparation" was not defined in the Act or the Rules, and therefore had to be understood in its ordinary and commonly accepted sense. A preparation made from basic Ayurvedic ingredients by a traditional Ayurvedic process and sold as an Ayurvedic medicine answers that description even if it is not formulated in accordance with a recipe or direction contained in a recognised Ayurvedic pharmacopoeia. Rule 64 supported this view by recognising asavas and aristas as principal Ayurvedic preparations with self-generated alcohol. Rule 65 did not impose any requirement that the preparation must conform to a specified pharmacopoeia, nor did it exclude traditional formulations. The appellate authority proceeded on a misconception in treating prior governmental notification and pharmacopoeial mention as essential preconditions for Ayurvedic character.

Conclusion: The disputed product was an Ayurvedic preparation within Entry 3(i) and was not exigible to duty under Entry 3(iii); the assessee's claim succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute leaves a commercial or descriptive term undefined, it is to be construed in its ordinary and commonly understood sense, and a traditional preparation made from recognised ingredients and marketed as such cannot be excluded merely because it is not expressly listed in a pharmacopoeia or prepared from a prescribed text.

---