Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Amrutanjan Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 June, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(88)ELT698(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals). In terms of that order he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the orders of the Asstt. Collector holding that the medicines, 'Hero Super Balm', 'Amrutanjan Inhaler' 'Amrutanjan Cold Rub' and 'Dragon Liquid Balm' manufactured by the appellants are not ayurvedic medicines and they are classifiable under Tariff Heading 3003.10.
2. The learned Counsel contended before us that to be classified as an ayurvedic drug the essential qualifications are only two :
(i) that they should be so understood in common parlance, and
(ii) that they should find a place in ayurvedic treatises.
He pointed out that the synthetic nature of some of the ingredients used by the appellants will not take away the essential characteristics of their products as ayurvedic medicines. It was his contention that the use of some IP products like menthol, citric acid, ammonium chloride, etc. will not take away the products from the purview of ayurvedic preparations. In this connection, he placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 500. He further pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. v. CCE was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovecited decision.
3. The learned DR contended before us that the Col. (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Special Bench 'C' in order No. 1020/1021 /90 reported in 1991 (32) ECR 538 (Tribunal). He also stated that the appellants are manufacturing the above products by adding certain synthetics. Therefore, they ceases to be of ayurvedic preparations. He reiterated the reasonings in the impugned order.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The main reason for rejecting the contention of the appellant by the learned Col. (Appeals) on the ground that a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal holding that these are not ayurvedic preparations. This decision relied on by the adjudicating authority is now reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. In the above cited decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-
"We are concerned in this appeal against the decision of the CEGAT only with the appellant's product known as "Amrutanjan Pain Balm Ayurvedic". The appellants sought classification of the same on the basis that it was an ayurvedic medicament under Tariff Heading 3003.30 of the CET, 1985 and attracted nil rate of duty. The authorities below as also the Tribunal did not accept this classification. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, upheld the contention of the excise authorities that the balm was not an ayurvedic medicine because its main ingredients were Menthol IP, Camphor IP, Turpentine IP and Methyl Salicylate IP, which were of a synthetic nature. The contention of the appellants that the same ingredients had an ayurvedic nomenclature as could be found in authoritative text books was rejected because, according to the Tribunal, ayurvedic science recognises only the use of natural extracts from medicinal plants and these could not be substituted by modern chemical ingredients. The Tribunal said that the appellant had imported synthetic grade IP chemicals and had with the intention of evading liability to excise duty asked the suppliers to change the names upon invoices and labels to ayurvedic nomenclatures. Thus, methyl salicylate was changed to "pudina ka phool" dementholised oil to "pudina ka tel", thymol and turpentine to "ajwan ka phool" and "turpentine ka phool" and methyl salicylate to "winter green tel". The Tribunal would appear to have overlooked the fact that the same article can have a use both in ayurvedic and in the western sciences and be known by different names. The letters IP after the article concerned only demonstrate that it is of pharmaceutical quality as it ought to be if it is to be used in medicinal preparation. The Tribunal was in error in considering that the articles aforestated were synthetic in nature. Having regard to the evidence we are inclined to hold that the articles afore-mentioned were articles known both to ayurvedic and western sciences and were refined for use in medicaments. Since they were known to ayurveda, their use in the making of the balm did not by itself make the balm a non-ayurvedic product."
In that particular case, the Tribunal had held that ayurvedic since recognises only the use of natural abstracts like medicinal plants and these could not be substituted by modern chemical ingredients. The Tribunal has also held that the appellant in that case had imported synthetic grade IP chemicals which was used. In that particular case, methyl salicylate was changed to "pudina ka phool", dementholised oil to "pudina ka tel" and thymol and turpentine to "aiwan ka phool", etc. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the same article can have a use both in ayurvedic and in the western sciences and be known by different names. Therefore, it was held that the Tribunal was in error in considering that the arcicles were synthetic in nature. It was held in that case the articles afore-mentioned were articles known both to ayurvedic and western sciences and were refined for use in medicaments. Since they were known to ayruveda, their use in the making of balm did not make itself a non-ayurvedic product. On the same analogy, the mere fact that in the products in question which are 'Hero Super Balm', 'Amrutanjan Cold Rub', 'Amrutanjan Inhaler' and 'Dragon Liquid Balm' merely because some of these products like menthol, thymol, etc. were used, it cannot take the same out of the purview of ayurvedic medicine. The decision of the Tribunal which was relied on by the learned Col. (Appeals) is now overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision.
5. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the above products are non-ayurvedic in nature merely because some synthetics were used in the preparation of the same. These articles are known to ayurveda and western sciences and there is no contrary finding in this regard in the orders of the lower authorities. There is no finding that these products were not known to ayurveda. In the absence of any such finding merely because they are used in the making of these products, will not make the same as non-ayurvedic products. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.