TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Although the Petitioner Assessee urged two questions of law in the petitions, Mr. Sahoo at the outset stated that he was pressing only question (i) which reads thus: Whether Hajmola candy is exigible to tax as an Ayurvedic medicine under list A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 ('OST Act')? 3. The background facts are that the Petitioner Assessee is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing and selling of a variety of products including ayurvedic medicines. During the relevant periods i.e., 1993-94, 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99, the Petitioner was initially assessed under Section 12 (4) of the OST Act. Subsequently, as per the objection raised by the A.G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at the rate at which confectionary items are taxed. The re-assessment orders of the STO were accordingly restored. 7. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department. 8. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal reveals that the tribunal primarily relied on the decision of the West Bengal taxation Tribunal (WBTT) in Dabur India Limited v. ACCT/Corporate Division (2007) 5 VST 190 (WBTT). In the said decision, the WBTT took note of the decision of the Special Bench of the CEGAT, New Delhi in Dabur India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut 1994 (71) ELT 1069 (Tri) holding that Hajmol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or of Apex Court with reference to the item in question or of identical goods having similar ingredients placed before us. The position would have been different if it was so. In the absence of any contrary decision respectfully we are following the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court on this issue. Accordingly, we hold that Hajmola Candy is classifiable under heading 3003.30 of C.E.T." Clearly therefore the Tribunal in the instant case committed a fundamental error in omitting to notice what was actually decided in Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India (supra). 10. There is also the decision of the CEGAT, New Delhi in Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Dabur India Ltd. 2002 (144) ELT 365 (Tri-Del.). There again ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classifiable according to the popular meaning attached to it by those using the product. As stated above, in this case the appellants have shown that all the ingredients in the product are those which are mentioned in Ayurvedic textbooks. This by itself may not be sufficient but the appellants have shown that they have a Drug Controller's licence for the product and they have also produced evidence by way of prescriptions of Ayurvedic doctors, who have prescribed these for treatment of rickets. As against this, the Revenue has not made any effort and not produced any evidence that in common parlance the product is not understood as a medicament." 12. In the present case as well the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated that the produ....