https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92739 Classification of the goods depended on their common parlance character rather than their scientific composition. Sugar-based lozenges sold in general confectionery shops and consumed for taste, without evidence of prescribed curative use by ayurvedic practitioners, were treated as confectionery. Mere reference to ingredients in ayurvedic texts was insufficient to make them medicaments. Applying the common parlance test, the tariff description as sugar confectionery prevailed over the claimed medicinal character, and the products were classifiable under sub-heading 1704.90 rather than as ayurvedic medicaments under sub-heading 3003.30. en-us Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:02:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92739 Classification of the goods depended on their common parlance character rather than their scientific composition. Sugar-based lozenges sold in general confectionery shops and consumed for taste, without evidence of prescribed curative use by ayurvedic practitioners, were treated as confectionery. Mere reference to ingredients in ayurvedic texts was insufficient to make them medicaments. Applying the common parlance test, the tariff description as sugar confectionery prevailed over the claimed medicinal character, and the products were classifiable under sub-heading 1704.90 rather than as ayurvedic medicaments under sub-heading 3003.30. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92739