Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur

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

…30.03.1995 in relation to the same assessee and concerning the classification of the same product namely Dant Manjan Lal12. In the said previous decision, being the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur: (1996) 9 SCC 402, the issue 12 ‘DML’, for short. 38 was as to whether DML manufactured by the assessee was falling within the meaning of an Ayurvedic Medicine to qualify for exemption from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 62/78-CE dated 01.03.1978 issued in exercise of power conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The rel…

Commissioner of Central Excise Etc vs. M/S.Aishwarya Industries Through Its Managing Director Etc

Bench: Us.

…dyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur7 the issue before this Court was as to whether Dant Manjan Lal manufactured by the Assessee was medicine so as to be 51981 (8) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) 61988 (35) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 7(1996) 9 SCC 402 20 covered by Exemption Notification No.62/78­CE dated 1st March, 1978 or a toilet preparation. 18. In Alpine Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi8 the question that arose for consideration before this Court was whether “Lip Salve” is classifiable under Heading 33.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985…

Commnr.of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/S.Connaught Plaza Rest.(P)Ltd.N.D

…yderabad13, two appeals were under consideration. One was with respect to Vicks Vapo Rub and Vicks Cough Drops while the other was with respect to Sloan's Balm and Sloan's Rub. It was observed that when there is no definition of any kind in the 12 (1996) 9 SCC 402 13 (2004) 9 SCC 136 18 Page 19 JUDGMENT relevant taxing statute, the articles enumerated in the tariff schedules must be construed as far as possible in their ordinary or popular sense, that is, how the common man and persons dealing with it understand it. The Court held that in both the cases the customers, the practitioners in Ayurvedic me…

Commnr. of Central Excise vs. M/S. Wockhardt Life Science Ltd

…Act. In that case, the assessee’s products were classifiable as pharmaceutical products before and after the enactment of the Tariff Act. However, the revenue issued show cause notices on the basis of the decision of this Court in Shree Baidyanath, (1996) 9 SCC 402 alleging that the products are understood as cosmetics in common parlance. The revenue further contended before this Court that the product was classifiable under Chapter 33 as a cosmetic as 30 there was no need for a medical practitioner’s prescription and the same was sold in general/departmental store. The assessee took the stand th…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Baidynath Ayurwed Bhawan Ltd

Appeals are allowed

…. The litigative journey with regard to classification of this product has reached this Court earlier in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur1. We shall refer to that decision a little later. 1 (1996) 9 SCC 402 3 First we shall advert to the sequence of facts leading to the present controversy. 4. Baidyanath is engaged in the activity of manufacturing medicines adopting Indian systems. They have their works situate at Calcutta (now Kolkata), Naini, Patna, Nagpur and Jhansi. One of the products being manufactured by Baidya…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ishaan Research Lab. (P) Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

…oducts would essentially take these products out of the caption of “Ayurvedic Medicines”. Learned counsel very heavily relied on a decision of this Court in Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, etc. [(1996) 9 SCC 402). In short, the main contention of the learned counsel is that we must apply common parlance test for all these products which was accepted by this Court in that decision. According to the learned counsel the Tribunal should have followed the law laid down to the effect that since all these products were 9 understood to be the “cosmetics” in co…

Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise

…f should be understood not in strict scientific and technical sense but in their popular sense i.e. the meaning assigned to them by those trading in and using the product (see Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur: [1996] 9 SCC 402 at para 3). The words "mosaic tiles" in the exemption notification are to be understood, thus, in their popular meaning. After the words "mosaic tiles" the addition of words "tiles known commercially as "mosaic tiles" in the text of the exemption notification appears to be an over emphasis, with intention to assign meaning to the product in the sen…

M/S. Alpine Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi

In the result, we find no merit in

…Court on the dispute regarding classification for excise duty, the product-Dant Manjan Lal manufactured by Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. reported in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur and Ors., [1996] 9 SCC 402. The manufacturer claimed the product to be an ayurvedic medicina preparation product for dental care. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by this court by holding that ’ordinarily a medicine is prescribed by a medical practitioner and it is used for a limited time and not every day unless it is so prescribed to deal with a specific disease like di…