Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)
Sh. Kamal Chandravadan Shah And ... vs C.C.E. on 22 January, 2004 cites

M/S. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra, ... vs Cce, Allahabad on 29 May, 2001

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 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra on 30 April, 2003

2.3 The learned Counsel submitted that for a product to be classified under Heading 30.03 as Ayurvedic medicament, the requirement is only that the ingredients of the product should find mention in the Ayurvedic Text book, the products would be classified as Ayurvedic medicaments only though as patented medicines; that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra vs. C.C.E., Allahabad, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 610 (T-LB), affirmed by the Supreme Court in C.C.E. vs Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra, 2003 (154) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.), has held that the product "having ingredients exclusively mentioned in the authoritative books, but manufactured in accordance with the formulation of the manufacturer and sold in the brand name 'Himtaj Oil' is Ayurvedic medicament even though not a classical one".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - S N Variava - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Sharma Chemical Works on 30 April, 2003

the Supreme Court recently in Sharma Chemical Works case, 2003-TAXINDIAONLINE-45-SC-CX, has held that merely because the percentage of medicament in a product is less, does not also ipso facto mean that the product is not a medicament. "Generally the percentage or dosage of the medicament will be such as can be absorbed by the human body. The medicament would necessarily be covered by fillers/vehicles in order to make the product usable." It is also a settled law that onus or burden to show that a product falls within a particular Tariff Item is always on the Revenue. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to show that the medicinal use of the impugned product is a subsidiary one. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned products Canifur Liquid and Cainfur AZ Liquid are Ayurvedic medicament classifiable under Heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff. We, therefore, set aside all the impugned orders and allow all the appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 77 - B Kumar - Full Document
1