TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court. In its order reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 844, on the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal had found the product, not to have the qualities of the medicament. It had found, absence of evidence to show that its use was as a medicine and not as an article of toiletry. It had preferred to go by the popular meaning, the meaning attached by the persons using the product, rather than the scientific and technical meaning. It declined to accept the certificates in affidavit given by vaidyas as to the usage of the product. This reason of the Tribunal has been endorsed in no uncertain terms by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 492 on an appeal filed by the assessee. 3.The Advocate for the appellant contends that this judgment of the Supreme Court is no longer to be applied. He contends that the question before the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, was whether the goods were entitled to exemption under Notification 62/78. The relevant entry in the table to the Notification 62/78 exempted "All drugs, medicines and pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified." The decision of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not prescribed by a medical practitioner, used for a limited time, and not prescribed to deal with a specific disease. It also endorsed the Tribunal's view that the certificates given by vaidyas could not be accepted in the absence of evidence to show that the use of the product is as a medicine. 6.The circulars of the Board have at different times taken different views on the subject. In its Circular dated 25-9-1991 (103/10/90-CX), it had held that notwithstanding the Tribunal's judgment, the product to be manufactured by the appellant should be classified as a product of ayurvedic medicament. It relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. Richardson Hindustan (Appeal 2137/88) which, it says, upheld the true test to be applied to determine the classification of the product as an ayurvedic medicine that the product in common parlance is known as ayurvedic medicine and the ingredients are mentioned in the authorities put on ayurved. This circular was issued prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in regard to Dant Manjan Lal [1996 (83) E.L.T. 492]. In a subsequent circular of 31-10-1996, it told its officers that the Supreme Court's judgment has been accepted by the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability. Thus it is relevant for all times and not merely to a particular period with reference for a particular tariff item." 9.The Heading 3003.31, prior to its amendment, was markedly different. It read "Medicaments including those used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidha, Homoeopathy or Biochemical System". The question to be considered, therefore, is whether the change made in the tariff heading is the extent and scope made in the tariff. 10.Prior to its amendment, the tariff heading did not indicate what exactly an Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidha, Homoeopathy or Biochemical Medicament was. After the amendment, it does not in term define any of these medicaments. It however does provide that it is those medicaments manufactured exclusively described in the authoritative books specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, that are to be classifiable under sub-heading 31. There is no dispute that the product under consideration is manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formula described in the Ayurvedic Sar Sangraha, which is an authoritative books specified in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The reason for denial therefore would only be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld, limiting wherever necessary, the extent to which the conditions of which that medicament may be sold. Such an authority may in addition control the manufacture, distribution and sale of such medicaments. 15.The Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules made thereunder contain these provisions in this country. Section 5 contains a provision of constituting the Drugs Technical Advisory Board. Section 6 provides for a Central Drugs Laboratory for carrying out the functions of the Act. Section 7 provides for Drugs Consultative Committee. Section 20 contains provisions for Drug Governments analysis. Section 26(a) embodied the power of the Central Government to prohibit manufacture of a drug and cosmetic likely to risk the human beings and animals or the drug that does not have therapeutic value claimed for it. There are also penal provisions. The rule provide for manufacture and sales of drugs to be controlled by a licence and testing of samples. 16.The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides for a licence to be obtained for manufacture of Ayurvedic, Sidha, Homoeopathic and Unani medicines. Technical Advisory Board to advise Central and State Governments on technical matters. Among t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
