Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.54 seconds)Leukoplast (India) Ltd. vs State Of Goa on 3 February, 1988
He said that the very fact that the appellants have obtained drug licence to manufacture this item as Ayurvedic medicine by Drug Control Authorities of Uttar Pradesh answers the test of common parlance as it was held in the case of Leucoplast (India) Ltd. v. State of Goa [1988 (36) E.L.T. 369A (Bom.)] that if a product is manufactured under Drug Controller's licence under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, it can be taken as understood in trade parlance and the decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court with reference to the identical product having similar ingredients on examining the experts' opinion on this issue substantiates the claim of the appellants that item is classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine under T.I. 3003.30. The addition of sugar or bulk in quantity would not change the quality of the active ingredients in the product and this was precisely considered in the aforesaid judgement. Sugar acts as binding agent or preservative not changing the nature of medicine but addition is only to mask the bitter taste of medicine. Department sought cancellation of Drug Licence in that case, but the Drug Controller after examining the goods with the analysis report found that there was no need to cancel and arrived at the conclusion that it was a medicine and in fact the Department has not questioned the Drug licence in this case.
Madras Fertilizers Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 20 January, 1994
Referring to the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 as per definition Section 3(a) of that Act product had to be prepared in accordance with the formula described in the authoritative books on Ayurveda as noticed in the decision in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras [1992 (19) ETR 481], and the goods herein called 'Hajmola' being patented medicine and as per Section 3(h) of that Act patent or proprietary medicine does not include a medicine which is administered by parental route and also a formulation included in the authoritative books as specified in clause (a). Hence the reasoning of the Assistant Collector that though the ingredients are mentioned in the authoritative books but the process of manufacture of Hajmola has not been mentioned in the authoritative books of Ayurveda is wrong and contrary to the provisions of Section 3(h) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. He said that the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in observing that the goods are not medicament in the absence of clinical test report.
Panama Chemical Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 July, 1992
The goods are not scheduled drugs but only sold over the counters and products are used in treatment of minor stomach problems and all these points were considered in Panama Chemical Works (supra). Further the Collector (Appeals) has wrongly applied Rule 4 of the Interpretative Rules in determining the classification and proper Rule is Rule 3 where two headings are applicable but in the instant case heading 30.03 is specific for goods in question as they are used as medicaments.
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P) ... vs Excise Commissioner, U.P. & Ors on 14 October, 1970
Referring to the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd., Naini [1987 (27) E.L.T. 671] and in the case of Sri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. & Another v. C.C.E. Patna, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 844, he said that it was held in both the cases that Dantmanjan Lal was not an excisable item and that definition given in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not applicable to the excise law as it was observed in the latter case in determining the issue of classification and no expert opinion was filed before the authorities below but placed on record now subsequent to the passing of the order-in-appeal cannot be relied upon. He submitted that item is appropriately classifiable under heading 17.04.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Richardson Hindustan Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 February, 1988
Collector Of Central Excise vs Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. on 24 June, 1992
1. Collector of Central Excise v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1989 (42) E.L.T. 33]
Collector Of Central Excise vs Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. on 5 November, 1986
Referring to the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd., Naini [1987 (27) E.L.T. 671] and in the case of Sri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. & Another v. C.C.E. Patna, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 844, he said that it was held in both the cases that Dantmanjan Lal was not an excisable item and that definition given in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not applicable to the excise law as it was observed in the latter case in determining the issue of classification and no expert opinion was filed before the authorities below but placed on record now subsequent to the passing of the order-in-appeal cannot be relied upon. He submitted that item is appropriately classifiable under heading 17.04.
1