Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra, ... vs Cce, Allahabad on 29 May, 2001

Procter And Gamble India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 22 April, 2004

8. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The main dispute in all these appeals is whether the products manufactured by them are Ayurvedic Medicine. It has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Kendra (supra) that differentiation has been made between Ayurvedic Medicine manufactured in accordance with formula prescribed in the authoritative text books specified in the first Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Ayurvedic Medicament manufactured otherwise and that the product is Ayurvedic Medicine even though it is not manufactured in accordance with the formula prescribed in text books. The Supreme Court has affirmed the said decision as reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Kamal Chandravadan Shah And ... vs C.C.E. on 22 January, 2004

He, further, mentioned that Section 3(h) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, while defining the term 'patent or proprietory medicine' in relation to Ayurvedic system of medicine clearly mentions that formulation should contain only such ingredients mentioned in the formulae described in the authoritative books of Ayurvedic System; that in Himtaj case, the Tribunal has specifically observed in Para 24 of the decision that "there are ample materials made available by the appellant in support of his contention that the ingredients which had gone into the manufacture of 'Himtaj Oil' are only those which are specifically mentioned in the authoritative text books on Ayurvedia"; that in 'Himtaj' case there were sufficient materials to support the contention that the said product is known as Ayurvedic medicament in common parlance which is missing in the present matters.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 28 January, 2003

The learned DR also mentioned that decision in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra, supra, is not applicable as the facts are different; that in the said case, the product was not to be used on hair but on scalp whereas the impugned product is used on hair; that further in Himtaj case the product's dosage and period of use was also specified.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Naturence Research Lab (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 31 January, 2003

3.3 He also mentioned that the Reference books are (1) Drav Gun Vigyan (2) Bhav Prakash Nighand and (3) The India Material Medica. He contended that as these products cure diseases and are manufactured using ingredients which are specifically mentioned in the authoritative text books on Ayurveda; that the Larger Bench in Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra case has held 'Himtaj Oil' as Ayurvedic medicament as it is having ingredients exclusively mentioned in the authoritative books, but manufactured in accordance with the formulation of the manufacturer.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Cce vs Dabur India Ltd. on 28 February, 2003

7. We also observe that this Tribunal has already considered the classification of Lal Tail in the case of M/s. Dabur India Ltd. only [Final Order No. A692/KOL/2002 dated 26.6.2002]. The Tribunal has held therein that "The statement on packet regarding usfulness in infantile rickets does not also change the situation. Lal Tail is not a medicine prescribed for treatment of infantile rickets. The product is basically a skin nourishing item. As has been emphasised by the learned Counsel for the revenue, the scheme of the Central Excise Tariff is to assess only medicines which cure or prevent ailment as medicines. Incidental medicinal properties would not take cosmetics out of their natural home and put them in the unnatural company of medicines." The ratio of the decision of Larger Bench in Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra, supra, is not applicable to the facts of the present matter. In the said matter, the Tribunal observed that "there are sufficient materials to support the contention of the appellants that its product is known as Ayurvedic 'medicament' in common parlance". One of such materials was the chief chemist Report to the effect that the product is an Ayurvedic medicament and moreover the Allahabad High Court has held 'Himtaj oil' as a medicament oil in Sales Tax matter. No such material has been brought on record in the present matter. The Board's Circular No. 333/49/97-CX dated 10.9.1997 also does not advance the case of the Assessees. Para 9 (c) of the Circular mentions that the drug licence may be used as a guide for the classification of product but not as the determining factor. The classification of a product under Chapter 30 or Chapter 33 may be done as per the Rules of Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act read with Chapter Note l(d) to Chapter 33 and various judgments mentioned in the Circular. We thus held that the impugned product is not classifiable under Sub-Heading 3003-39 of the Central Excise Tariff as Ayurvedic Medicament. Thus we allow the Appeal No. E/808/2002-C filed by the Revenue. This is not fit case for imposition of penalty equivalent to the amount of duty as has been done in the impugned order No. 23/2002 dated 27.6.2002. We reduce the penalty to Rs. 25,000 only. But for this modification, the Appeal No. 2788/2002-C filed by M/s. Precise Laboratories Ltd. is rejected.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Shahnaz Ayurvedics And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 14 May, 2003

4.2 He mentioned that thus a differentiation was made between Ayurvedic medicaments manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative text-books and sold under name as specified under such books and ayurvedic medicaments manufactured otherwise in the matter of granting exemption from payment of duty; that the definition given in the Notification was incorporated in the Tariff Heading with effect from April, 1996 when the Tariff itself was amended; that this has also been the findings of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, 2002 (48) RLT 264; wherein it has been held that sub-Heading 3003.30 took in both classical as well as patent or proprietary ayurvedic medicaments and the distinction between the two was brought in for the first time in the Notification No. 75/94 and total exemption was limited to only the classical ayurvedic medicaments whereas 10% ad valoram duty was levied on P or P medicines; that the Larger Bench has held that the product of the Appellant therein, "having ingredients exclusively mentioned in the authoritative books, but manufactured and sold in the brand name 'Himtaj Oil', is Ayurvedic medicament even though not a classical one". He thus contended that the products containing ingredients specified in the Ayurvedic Texts but manufactured as per the formula of the Appellants would be patent or proprietary Ayurvedic medicines under sub-Heading 3003.39 of the Tariff.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad on 11 November, 2003

Strong reliance was also placed by the appellant's counsel on the decision of the larger Bench of the CEGAT in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Kendra vs. CCE reported in 2002 (139) ELT 610. In that case the Revenue contended that Himtaj Oil will be classified under Heading 33.05 as Perfumed Hair Oil. The larger Bench of the Tribunal held that it is a medicament falling under Chapter 30 and it is a patented Ayurvedic medicament falling under sub-heading 3003.30.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 37 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Cce, Chennai-I vs Impcops on 11 August, 2015

5.?We find that all the above submissions were raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra and the same were not accepted by the Tribunal. Apart from the Larger Bench decision in the above case we also take note of the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Sharma Chemicals reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) laying down that the product should be manufactured in accordance with the various ingredients specified in the authoritative ayurvedic books and under a licence from the Drug Control authority have to be classified as Ayurvedic medicine. We find that apart from the various facts enumerated above the assessee has also produced affidavit/certificate/clinical trial report showing that the product is formulated to cure various hair diseases like Alopecia, Graying of hair, Dandruff, Itching of skull and to improve blood circulation to hair follicles. Hence, the product has to be held as having therapeutic and prophylactic value. As such we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc, Ce & St, Hyderabad-Iv vs Oio No. 40/2013-Adjn (Commr) C.E. Dated ... on 31 January, 2018

9. The above judgments of the Honble Apex Court and the Tribunal clearly spells out that even though the goods are sold over the counter and not on a medical prescription, it would not lead to the goods being out of the category of medicine. The adjudicating authority has held that since the hair growth is cosmetic necessity and the product label shows the lady with long hair the goods are cosmetic product. We are not in agreement with the above views of the adjudicating authority. Firstly when the different branches of medicine and the Licensing authorities recognize the baldness or hairfall as disease in that case the adjudicating authority cannot take a different view which is not recognized by the branches of medicine. Secondly the product clearly mentions that the product in question is used for other ailments also such as sleep loss, increase of blood circulation and it nowhere depicts itself as for hair care or enhancing beauty of hair. The label indicates the product as Homeoptahic medicine under schedule K, ingredients and their composition, indications, contra indications and mode of application. The content of label thus itself shows that even in common parlance it is understood by the users and the traders as Homeopathic medicine. There is no advice on the label nor does it suggests that it can be used as hair oil. It is not disputed about the fact that the product is made of four Homeopathic medicines as ingredients namely Arnica Mount, Cantharis, Pilocarpin and Cinchona and is used to treat the hair loss, insomnia, dandruff, headache and other ailments. It is manufactured under Drug Licence issued under Rule 25 C of Drugs & Cosmetic Rules 1945 and in terms of Rules 85D by the Director, Indian Medicine & Homeopathy. The licence has been renewed from time to time by the Additional Director & Drug Controller (Homeo), Department of Ayush, Government of Telangana State. Even as per analysis report & Drug Controller, Department of Ayush the product is medicine. The product is covered by serial no. 35 of Schedule K of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules (Homeopathic Hair oils having active ingredients upto 3X potency) and the said schedule covers only drugs and not Cosmetics. The product has already been held to be Drug by the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in reference to APGST as well as Commercial taxes. The Advance Ruling authority of Commercial Taxes, Government of Tamilnadu for the purpose of TNVAT Act 2006 held that product to be a homeopathic medicine. We find that even before the subject cases, on many occasions in the past, Appellant were issued show cause notices for classification of goods as cosmetic and the Appellate Authority after going into all the aspects of common parlance as well as contents of the product and its usage held that the product is Homeopathic medicine. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of CCE, Nagpur Vs. M/s Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. 2009 (237) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) to state that the product in question does not satisfy the common parlance test. We find that the ratio of said judgment is not applicable as in the said case, the product Lal Dant Manjan was known as toilet preparation in common parlance and not as Ayurvedic medicine. Whereas in the present case the facts are entirely different as the Appellant has sold the goods as Homeopathic medicine and it is known as Homeopathic medicine in the common parlance. Even as apparent from facts the label of the product clearly shows the product as Homeopathic medicine, its content and usage. It also says that it should be left overnight. We are of the view that when the product is being sold as Homeopathic medicine and known as homeopathic medicine in the market the goods pass test of common parlance test as Homeopathic medicine.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Herbal Products vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 23 August, 2002

6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. The Commissioner has proceeded to classify the items as cosmetic items based upon the labels and pamphlets issued by the party and same could be sold in general stores. He also observed that the items were not manufactured as per the formula prescribed in the ayurvedic text books though they were having same ingredients as mentioned in the ayurvedic text books. This view is no longer good in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Himtaj (supra), wherein it was clearly held that there should also be ayurvedic medicaments which are manufactured in accordance with the formula of the manufacturer and still can be considered as medicaments classifiable under Chapter heading 3003.30 and are exempt from payment of duty. It was also observed in that case, the product of the appellant having ingredients exclusively mentioned in the authoritative books but manufactured in accordance with the formulation of the manufacturer and sold in the brand name of himtaj oil is an ayurvedic medicament even though not a classical one. Accordingly both classical as well as patent or proprietary ayurvedic medicaments are classifiable under 3003.30.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next