Ayurvedic exemption depends on the product being sold under the prescribed name in the relevant books, not merely on formula compliance.

Exemption under Notification No. 75 of 1994 for Ayurvedic medicaments depended not only on manufacture according to the prescribed formula in the specified books, but also on sale under the exact name specified in those books or pharmacopoeias. Although the product was manufactured in accordance with the formula, the label and classification materials showed it was sold as "Maha Bhringol," with "Maha Bhringaraj Oil" appearing only in smaller print. Because the sold name did not match the name prescribed in the relevant texts, the exemption condition was not met. The characterization of the expression as a brand name or trade name was held to be irrelevant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 75 of 1994 for Ayurvedic medicaments when the product was sold under a name not specified in the Ayurvedic books or pharmacopoeias.

Analysis: The notification exempted medicaments used in Ayurvedic preparation manufactured according to the formula prescribed in the specified books, and sold under the name specified in those books or pharmacopoeias. The product was manufactured according to the prescribed formula, but the wrappers and classification list showed that it was sold as "Maha Bhringol", while "Maha Bhringaraj Oil" appeared only in smaller print. The decisive factor was the name under which the product was sold. Since "Maha Bhringol" was not the name specified in the books or pharmacopoeias, the product did not satisfy the condition for exemption. Whether that expression was a brand name or trade name was held to be irrelevant.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification and the denial of exemption was upheld.

---