TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Limited v. CCE, Hyderabad No. 8/2007 (H-IV) C.E., dt. 15-3-2007 E/650/07 CCE, Hyderabad v. M/s. Natural Health Products Pvt. Ltd. No. 20/2007 (H-IV) C.E., dt. 14-4-2007 E/651/07 CCE, Hyderabad v. VVS Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. No. 23 & 24/2007 (H-IV) C.E., dt. 14-4-2007 E/737/08 CCE, Hyderabad v. VVS Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd No. 23 & 24/2007 (H-IV) C.E., dt. 14-4-2007 Since all these above referred appeals are filed against an issue which is common in all these appeals i.e., classification of product "Shahicool herbal sharbat" manufactured by the assessees on loan licence basis for M/s. Himalaya Drug Co. Pvt. Ltd., all the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the assessee herein above were manufacturers of "Shahicool herbal sharbat" and classifying the same under Chapter Sub-heading No. 3003.39 as Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine and paying Central Excise duty at the rate of 16%. Revenue was not accepting this classification and after investigation came to the conclusion that this product merits classification under Chapter Sub-heading No. 2108.20 and 2106.9011(sic) on the gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....158) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). 3.1 Of all these case-laws, he would more specifically rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (supra) and Amrutanjan Ltd. v. CCE (supra). It is his submission that lower authorities have not considered the report of clinical trial conducted on the assessee's product of "Shahicool herbal sharbat" in treatment of "Dyspepsia". He would exhort us to go through the said clinical trial report. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naturalle Health Product (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (supra). It is his submission that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee-appellant. 4. The learned JCDR on the other hand would submit that the appellant's products are nothing but sharbat or beverages. She would submit that the Adjudicating Authority in Appeal Nos. E/229, 270, 547/2007 has given a very detailed finding as to why this product manufactured by the appellants cannot be considered as Ayurvedic P & P Medicament. She would also exhort us to go through the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunals which are mentioned herein b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e product "Shahicool herbal sharbat" was considered by the licensing authority i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Indian Medicines and Homoeopathy Department, as Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine. 5.6 We have also perused the contents of the label which is annexed to the appeal memorandum at page 63. We find that the compositions as mentioned in that label and as has been reproduced herein above by us in the licence granted to the assessee are the same. The said labels claim the product "Shahicool Herbal Sharbat" as an "Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine" and not as a beverage. It can be seen from the licence reproduced herein above that the Authoritative Book Reference and page numbers is given by "M/s. The Himalayan Drugs Company" and has been certified by the licensing authorities. It is to be noted that all the ingredients find mention in 'Bhavprakash'. It is undisputed before us that the 'Bhavprakash' is a book of Ayuvedic Medicine. 5.7 In the light of the above, we find that the issue as to whether the product gets covered as P & P Ayurvedic medicament is now squarely covered by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larly para 12 which refers to the literature published by M/s. IRLP on the Skin Care Naturals wherein it is suggested that the use of Biotique Products would make the skin beautiful and would help the user retain the bloom of youth. From this the main argument was that all these products were only helpful as the cosmetics or toiletries and they were also understood to be the same. Learned counsel took us painstakingly to Show Cause Notice to suggest that even IRLP was treating all these products as the products for enhancement of beauty and not as medicines much less Ayurvedic medicines. It was also contended that the user of non-Ayurvedic products in these products would essentially take these products out of the caption of "Ayurvedic Medicines". Learned counsel very heavily relied on a decision of this Court in Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, etc, [(1996) 9 SCC 402]. In short, the main contention of the learned counsel is that we must apply common parlance test for all these products which was accepted by this Court in that decision. According to the learned counsel the Tribunal should have followed the law laid down to the effect that ....