2000 (3) TMI 318 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies exemption for Ayurvedic Medicaments due to deviation from authorized product names.

The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal that granted exemption under Notification No. 75/94-CX for Ayurvedic ... Oil - Benefit of the notification No. 75/94-CX dated 29-3-1994 not available. Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal granting exemption under Notification No. 75/94-CX for Ayurvedic Medicaments; Interpretation of notification requirements regarding selling under specified name from authoritative text books.Analysis:The case involved a Revenue appeal against an Order-in-Appeal allowing the assessee's claim for exemption under Notification No. 75/94-CX for Ayurvedic Medicaments. The dispute arose from the discrepancy in the product name specified in authoritative text books and the name used by the assessee for marketing. The Revenue contended that the product was not sold under the name prescribed in the text books, leading to a short levy demand. The issue revolved around whether the product must be sold under the exact name specified in authoritative texts to qualify for the exemption.The notification provided full exemption for medicaments prepared according to formulae in authoritative books and sold under the specified name. The circular clarified different scenarios for selling such medicaments, emphasizing that the name specified in the text books must be used for availing the exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of these provisions and illustrations, categorizing the assessee's situation under the scenario where the product is sold under a different name than specified in the text books, thus denying the exemption.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the requirement to sell the medicaments under the exact name from the authoritative texts to qualify for the exemption. The assessee's use of a different name for marketing, despite manufacturing as per the prescribed formula, led to the denial of the benefit. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not allow for deviations in product names specified in the text books, irrespective of additional branding or marketing elements.Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the contention regarding the legality of the Commissioner's authorization and found it to be proper under the relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue appeal was justified, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal and upholding the original Order-in-Original demanding the short levy amount. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict adherence to the specified requirements in notifications for availing exemptions under excise duty regulations.