Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

…d for “therapeutic or prophylactic uses”. [See Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 558, Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 266 & Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 585] ‘Use’ or ‘Adaptation’ inherent in the Tariff Heading 79. In Indian Tool Manufacturers (supra), this Court examined whether “Throw Away Inserts” should be classified under Tariff Item No. 51A (iii) or Tariff Item No. 62 of the Central Excises…

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

…. As a matter of fact, this Court has consistently applied common parlance test as one of the well-recognised tests to find out whether the product falls under Chapter 30 or Chapter 33. In a recent decision in Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2006) 3 SCC 266] this Court observed that in order to 41 determine whether a product is a cosmetic or medicament, a twin test (common parlance test being one of them) has found favour with the courts. This is what this Court observed: (SCC pp. 269-70, para 2) “2. … In order to determine whether a product is a cosmetic or a medicament a twin test has fou…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

…quantity of medicament used in a particular product will also not be a relevant factor for, normally, the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. [Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 3 SCC 266, State of Goa v. Colfax Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 83 and B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE 1995 Supp (3) SCC 1.] 62 35. However, there cannot be a static parameter for the correct classification of a commodity. This Court in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 284 has culled out this principle in the following words:…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCE LTD

…nt used in a particular product will also not be a relevant factor for, normally, the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. [Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CEE, Nagpur (2006) 3 SCC 266; State of Goa v. Colfoax Laboratories (2004) 9 SCC 83 ; B.P.L Pharmaceuticals v. CCE, 1995 Supp (3) SCC1] 21 31. However, there cannot be a static parameter for the correct classification of a commodity. This Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 284, has culled out this principle i…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. BAIDYNATH AYURWED BHAWAN LTD

Appeals are allowed

…t this as even the Department accepts that the test is determinative for the issue involved. The tests are: I. Whether the item is commonly understood as medicament which is called the common parlance test. For this test it will have to be 10 (2006) 3 SCC 266 2 seen whether in common parlance the item is accepted as a medicament. If a product falls in the category of medicament it will not be an item of common use. A user will use it only for treating a particular ailment and will stop its use after the ailment is cured. The approach of the consumer towards the product is very material .…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. ISHAAN RESEARCH LAB. (P) LTD

Appeals are dismissed

…Learned counsel also invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works [2003 (154) ELT 328 (SC)] as also the Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur [(2006) 3 SCC 266] to which decision one of us (Ashok Bhan, J.) was a party. Learned counsel, therefore, urges that even if the user of product leads to improvement in appearance of a person, that by itself cannot bring it into the category of “cosmetics” if otherwise the product is having a medicinal value and is claimed and marketed as such. 17. The learned co…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT vs. M/S. ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7849 of 2004 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat RESPONDENT: M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/11/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J : Respondent herein manufacture hair oil under the brand name of "Alma Lio". It was classified under SH No.3003.39 of the Schedule appended to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, ’the 1985 Act’). The said entry provides for excise duty at the rate of 8% ad valorem being Ayurvedic Medicament. A…