Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I vs Dabur India Ltd. on 12 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002ECR512(TRI.-DELHI), 2002(144)ELT365(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excise goods namely; "Hajmola Tablets" and clearing the same after classifying under sub-heading 3003.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act/1985 as the Ayurvedic Medicine. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents for classifying the Hajmola Tablets under Chapter sub-heading 2108.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as edible preparations not elsewhere specified. The adjudicating authority after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India, reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 241 (M.P.) and the decision of the Tribunal in respondents' own case Dabur India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1069 (Tribunal) dropped the proceedings. Revenue filed appeals and the same were dismissed vide impugned order.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that Hajmola Tablets is not a medicament under sub-heading 3003.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as it does not qualify the definition of medicament as provided under Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Hajmola Tablets does not treat the ailment or prevent disease. The Hajmola Tablets are known and taken orally as per label on the packages which describes the Hajmola Tablets as "Chatpat swad and jhatpat aram" and "Tamarind based tasty digestive", "Tasty Digestive Tablets". This description indicates that the Hajmola Tablets are taken popularly for its taste and less for its medicinal properties, therefore, it cannot be classified as an Ayurvedic drug under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The contention of the Revenue is also that ordinarily the medicine is prescribed by a Medical Practitioner and is used for a limited time and not for everyday unless it is so prescribed to deal with a specific disease. The Hajmola Tablets are being sold in the market in general stores, grossery shops and no prescription is required to purchase the tablets.
5. The contention of the respondent is that the Tribunal in their own case, in respect of Hajmola Candy which contains 25% active ingredients as per Ayurvedic texts and 75% sugar for taste are classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine under sub-heading 3003.30 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The Hajmola Tablets in question contains 75% active ingredients and ingredients are the same as of Hajmola Candy. The Revenue accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the case Hajmola Candy and no appeal has been filed by the Revenue. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the Hajmola Tablets are classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The respondents are also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India (supra), where the Hon'ble High Court held that "swad" digestive tablets having 3% active ingredients as per Ayurvedic texts and 97% sugar are classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff as Ayurvedic medicine.
6. The Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut (supra) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India (supra) and gave a finding that ingredients of Swad and Hajmola Candy is one and the same and held that Hajmola Candy which contains 25% active ingredients as per Ayurvedic Texts and 75% sugar for taste, are classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue had not challenged the above decisions. The admitted facts of the present case are that the active ingredients of Hajmola Tablets are 75% as against 3% Swad Tablets and 35% in respect of Hajmola Candy and the ingredients are the same as in the case of Hajmola Candy, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are rejected.