Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Herbal Products vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 23 August, 2002 cites

Richardson And Cruddas Ltd. vs Cce on 10 May, 2002

"3. The Government have further examined the matter in the light of parameters presented by the Tribunal m their Order No. 116/88-C, dated 10-2-1988 m the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd v C.C.E. Hyderabad. The Tribunal held that a preparation would merit classification as an Ayurvedic medicine, if in the common parlance, it is known as an Ayurvedic medicine and all its ingredients are mentioned m the authoritative book(s) on Ayurvedic medicine.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

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

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 - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Panama Chemical Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 July, 1992

In the absence of any contrary opinion of expert being on record, the opinion of the experts and that of the Drug Controller can not be held to be erroneous as it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 241. The relevant finding portion is in para 35 of the said decision and the same is as under :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1