TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng aggrieved by the levy of tax at 14.5% for the goods sold by it as sale of food supplements, instead of 5% tax as "proprietary Ayurevedic Medicines." 2. The goods for which the petitioner claims 5% tax under the classification of "medicines" are as follows:- (i) Vestige Spirulina Capsules. (ii) Vestige Noni Capsules. (iii)Vestige Ganoderma Capsules. (iv) Vestige Amla Capsules. (v) Vestige Aloe Vera Capsules. (The above five products are manufactured by M/s.Cosmic Nutracos Solution (P) Ltd., Himachal Pradesh, with valid license issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh.) (vi) Vestige Neem Oil. (vii) Vestige Flax Capsules. (These two products are manufactured ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% tax liability is the bone of contention in this revision petition. 6. The following substantial questions of law raised by the revision petitioner in its grounds of revision:- 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to dismiss the appeal with costs? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in concluding that the petitioner failed to produce the records before the authorities below including itself when petitioner produced copies of product testimonials and the distributors from (Annexures containing 93 pages) along with written submissions? 3. Whether the Tribunal ignored the law that the necessity to obtain the Drug Licence from Puducherry does not arise in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e costs is not fettered by any law. We find the power of the Tribunal to impose litigation expenses as costs is inbuilt. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee with costs is legally permissible and we find no excessive exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered in negative. Q2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in concluding that the petitioner failed to produce the records before the authorities below including itself when petitioner produced copies of product testimonials and the distributors from (Annexures containing 93 pages) along with written submissions? The assessee has obtained registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary Ayurvedic Medicines by applying the common Parlance test, the assessee himself has authoritatively claimed these products as food supplements while purchasing from other States and also submitted the returns claiming it as food supplements. However, for the purposes of tariff alone, he turns around and claims it as drugs / medicines. If the products are drugs or medicines the dealer of the products, ought to have obtained license under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, as well as the CST registration to deal must have covered 'Drugs/Medicine'. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner hold CST registration to deal with only six products, which includes food supplements but not drugs. The CST Registration to trade inter- state only in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eted by the petitioner under the residuary item when there is specific entry 46/Part A of the First Schedule under the Act for drugs? The assessee had purchased the above mentioned products declaring it as 'food supplements' from manufacturers located outside Puducherry and sold them as food supplements. However, for the purpose of tariff has taken a plea that those products are proprietary Ayurvedic Medicines. Since no evidence to substantiate the said claim by placing certificate to deal medicines/drug interstate or license to sell Drug/Medicine, it has been rightly held that the products purchased and sold as food supplements cannot for the purpose of tax tariff alone become 'medicines or drugs.' We find no error in the findings of....