TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the ground that the clearance value during 1994-95 was less than the ceiling limit prescribed in the above Notification. The benefit of Notification 75/94 available to goods falling under Chapter 30 was also claimed. A show cause notice was issued to them proposing classification of the product under CET sub-heading 3305.10 as perfumed hair oil and raising consequential duty demand. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the classification proposed in the notice and also confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 28,686.85 for the period 1-4-1995 to January, 1996. The lower appellate authority set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, upholding the assessee's contention that the product was an ayurvedic medicament classifiable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sample it is mentioned as "specially for Headache cure". Inside the container of the sample different ailments are mentioned for which the product can be used. Method of application is also given. In view of the above there are grounds to consider the product as medicament." Thus the test report and retest report are conflicting. Therefore, we have to look at what is meant by ayurvedic medicine under the Excise law. We find that although there is no dispute that the 22 ingredients of the product viz. til oil, agar, khas, dal chini, pudhina, etc. are ingredients mentioned in the ayurvedic text " Bhav Prakasha." the product by name is not described in any authoritative text of the Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani system of treatment. Further it has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h any formula prescribed in ayurvedic texts. The Tribunal's order in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. reported in 1991 (32) E.C.R 538 has been relied upon and the Bench has noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision in appeal against the above Tribunal's order in the Amrutanjan's case reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 500 S.C., has not reversed the finding of the Tribunal that ayurvedic medicines must be prepared according to the formulations laid down in any authoritative texts on ayurveda. 4. The case law cited by the learned Counsel is distinguishable. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 33, the criterion laid down for a product to be considered as ayurvedic medicine, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specific formula may not be material, upheld the Collector's order that Softovac was an ayurvedic medicine. We also find that the Tribunal's decision in the Naturelle Health Products' case was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided the Maneesh Pharmaceuticals case. 6. It is relevant to note that in neither of the above two decisions cited by the learned Counsel was the claim made that the products were falling under Chapter 33, as in the present case where the claim of the Revenue is that Himtaj Oil falls under Chapter 33 as perfumed hair oil. 7. The decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balaji Agencies v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP reported in 1994 (19) Sales Tax Journal 150 (All.) the....