2002(12)LCX0032

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI

Shri G. Sreekumar Menon

IN RE : TAMPCOL

Order-in-Appeal No. 202/2002 (M-II), dated 26-12-2002 in Appeal No. 9/2002 (M-II)

Cases Quoted

Amrutanjan Ltd. v. Collector — 1995(03)LCX0150 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0500 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]

B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals v. Collector — 1995(05)LCX0135 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0485 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]

Bakson Homoeo Pharmacy v. Commissioner — 2000(08)LCX0138 Eq 2001 (136) ELT 0485 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Appellate Collector — 1975(06)LCX0001 Eq 1990 (049) ELT 0190 (Bom.) — Relied on...... [Para 4]

Collector v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.— 1997(09)LCX0128 Eq 1998 (097) ELT 0152 (Tribunal) — Followed [Paras 3, 10]

Collector v. Nicholas Lab (India) Ltd. — 1991(05)LCX0071 Eq 1991 (056) ELT 0843 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Collector v. Pharmasia (P) Ltd. — 1989(12)LCX0064 Eq 1990 (047) ELT 0658 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Collector v. Ramakrishna Vidyut — 1999(08)LCX0284 Eq 2000 (125) ELT 0748 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Collector v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. — 1989(02)LCX0006 Eq 1989 (042) ELT 0033 (Tribunal) — Followed...... [Para 9]

Commissioner v. Dabur India Ltd. — 2002(04)LCX0203 Eq 2002 (144) ELT 0365 (Tribunal) — Followed.... [Paras 13, 14]

Commissioner v. Dabur India Ltd. — 2002(09)LCX0261 Eq 2002 (146) ELT A311 (S.C.) — Followed.... [Para 15]

Dabur India Ltd. v. Collector — 1994(03)LCX0018 Eq 1994 (071) ELT 1069 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector — 1962(05)LCX0001 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1342 (S.C.) — Relied on...... [Para 4]

Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra v. Commissioner — 2001(12)LCX0157 Eq 2002 (139) ELT 0610 (Tri. - LB) — Followed [Paras 5, 16]

Ishaan Research Lab. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000(08)LCX0084 Eq 2001 (137) ELT 0293 (Tribunal) — Followed [Para 12]

Manisha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I — 1999(05)LCX0161 Eq 1999 (112) ELT 0022 (Del.) — Referred [Para 3]

Mistair Home Products v. Commissioner — 2001(06)LCX0103 Eq 2001 (134) ELT 0488 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Overseas Cycle Co. v. Collector — 1990(10)LCX0040 Eq 1992 (058) ELT 0248 (Tribunal) — Relied on...... [Para 4]

Panama Chemical Works v. U.O.I. — 1992(07)LCX0021 Eq 1992 (062) ELT 0241 (M.P.)— Referred [Para 3]

Ramakrishna Vidyut Ayurvedic Pharmacy v. Commissioner — 2000(03)LCX0203 Eq 2000 (118) ELT 0618 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. Collector — 1988(02)LCX0055 Eq 1988 (035) ELT 0424 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000(12)LCX0213 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0218 (Tribunal) — Followed [Para 8]

U.O.I. v. Sampat Raj Dugar — 1992(01)LCX0029 Eq 1992 (058) ELT 0163 (S.C.) — Relied on ...... [Para 4]

DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED

C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 196/30/96-CX., dated 3-4-1996 [Para 7]

C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 333/49/97-CX., dated 10-9-1997...... [Para 6]

C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 379/12/98, dated 16-3-1998 . [Paras 3, 5]

Advocated By : S/Shri M.F. Farooqui I.A.S., Chairman and Managing Director and P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the Appellant.

None, for the Respondent.

[Order]. - This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 60/2001, dated 31-10-2001, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chennai I Division, Chennai II Commissionerate.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows :

(i)   The appellant M/s. Tamilnadu Medicinal Plant Farms and Herbal Medicine Corporation Ltd. (TAMPCOL), a Govt. of Tamilnadu undertaking, are manufacturers of “Tampcol Herbal Hair Tonic” and had classified the same as a medicament under Chapter heading 3003.39.

(ii)   As early as 19-10-1988, in file reference V/3307.00/30/15/86, vide Order-in-Original No. 68/AC/V/1988, the then Assistant Collector of Madras V Division had finalised the classification of the product under Chapter heading 3003.30. The findings of that order-in-original is extracted below :

“Since there are 2 rival entries, we have to see which is the more appropriate one, we have to determine what is the principal function of the item as against its subsidiary property.

To determine whether the product is a Siddha Medicine or not, we have the help of the chapter notes and judicial pronouncements on the subject. As per the chapter notes, the goods must have therapeutic or prophylactic use. As per the certificates of doctors, the hair tonic is effective for scalp strengthening of the hair roots, is effective in diseases like dandruff, ringworm and epidermosclerosis of the face and scalp and has a cooling effect, on the whole body. It was explained orally that in the Indian system of medicine, cooling the system is important in cases where there is extra heat - pitha - generated within the system.

As per judicial pronouncements, the medicinal ingredients must find a place in authoritative texts of the Ayurveda/Siddha system and the goods must be known as such by those who deal in them. The said corporation have produced certificates and letters from doctors, dealers and consumers which show that the instant goods are understood by them to be Siddha Medicine.

After going into the facts of this case, I conclude that the goods Herbal Hair Tonic is more appropriately classifiable under sub­heading 3003.30 as Siddha Medicament attracting Nil Tariff rate of duty, rather than as on cosmetic for use on the hair under sub­heading 3305.90.

The reasons for this classification are that (1) the goods have been manufactured as per formula in Siddha system of Medicine for which a Drug licence has been issued, (2) the hair tonic is understood by doctors, dealers and users to be primarily a Siddha medicament, and (3) the goods are certified by doctors to be useful in treating certain skin disorders of the scalp and face, prevent hair falling and gives coolness to the eyes and the body system.

In view of the classification under 3003.30, I drop the demand of duty under 3305.90.”

(iii)   However, the department not being satisfied with the above order-in-original preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

(iv)   The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 50/90 (M)(D), dated 30-4-90 in Appeal No. 58/99(M)(D), held as follows :

“Apart from the above, there are legal infirmities in the proceedings. The order under Section 35E(2) of the Act, directs the Assistant Collector to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for determination of the issue of classification of the said product. It does not refer to dropping of the demand of duty by the lower authority. The relevant portion of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, reads as follows :

I therefore direct that the said Assistant Collector shall apply to Collector (Appeals), Madras, for determination of the issue of classification of the said Herbal Hair Tonic. The said appeal shall be filed within the time-limit specified under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Notwithstanding the above, the Assistant Collector has requested for confirming the demand of duty for the period April - September, 1988. The relevant para in the ‘Grounds of Application’ is as follows :

“The Herbal Hair Tonic in question appears to be a preparation for use on the hair fitting in the description of heading 3305 of Chapter 33. As it is not a perfumed hair oil, it appears to be correctly classifiable under 3305.90 as other preparations for use on hair attracting duty at 105%”

“For the foregoing reasons, this application is filed for determination of the issue of classification of the said herbal hair tonic and consequently, confirming demand of duty on the same for the period April-September, 1988 which was dropped by the Assistant Collector.”

“It would be observed from the above that the Assistant Collector has gone beyond the direction of the Collector which is legally not permissible.”

“The cross-objection, filed by the respondents on the appeal of the department, is also silent with regard to the demand of duty in the department’s appeal. It merely prays that the appeal of the applicant, may be rejected and the original classification under sub­heading 3003.30 may be upheld.”

“In view of the above, I set aside the order of the original authority and remand the case for reconsideration, after issue of a show cause notice to the respondents, as per law. In that, the lower authority would be free to consider any additional evidence which is relevant to the proceedings.”

(v)   The above matter was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication.

(vi)   A detailed reply dated 30-5-2000 was submitted by the appellants and the Assistant Commissioner took up the matter for adjudication. After the due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner passed his order-in-original in File C. No. V/15/30/31/98-Adj., dated 31-10-2001, wherein he considered the following show cause notices :

(vii)   The findings of the lower authority as extracted from the order-in-original is as follows :

“In the instant case, I find that the product the Tampcol herbal hair tonic/new improved Tampcol herbal hair tonic is perceived to be a partly medicated hair oil rather than as a Siddha medicine. This popular perception is based on the actions of the individual ingredients used in the manufacture of the said hair tonic as declared, claimed and confirmed by Tampcol and also from the various advertisement of Tampcol for the said product, as already discussed above. In view of this, I am not inclined to agree with the claim of Tampcol that the said hair tonic was understood by doctors, dealers and users to be primarily a Siddha Medicament.”

“I am convinced that the product in question is not having therapeutic or prophylactic properties exclusively but substantially have the properties which take care of the hair and beautification of the hair as well.”

“Tampcol claimed that the items in question are certified by doctors to be useful in treating certain skin disorders of the scalp, preventing hair loss and gives coolness to the eyes and the body system. In this context, Tampcol also produced coies of the Supply Order of the Central Government Health Scheme, Medical Store Depot. While I agree that there may be occasions where the said Hair Tonic might have been prescribed by Doctors and even the CGHS might have indented for the said product, I wish to add that these factors do not by themselves answer the moot point for decision in this proceedings.”

“I confirm the classification of the Tampcol herbal hair tonic/new improved Tampcol herbal hair tonic and Tampcol Amla Thailam under Chapter 3305.10 as perfumed hair oil and order final assessment of duty accordingly.”

3. The appellant had submitted a detailed appeal memorandum against the order-in-original. A further submission was made at the time of the personal hearing. Their main argument can be summarised as follows :

(i)   Therapeutic or Prophylatic properties have been detailed in the Sarabendra Siddha Maruthuva Sudar. This treatise is an authoritative text book on siddha medicine and at the time of the personal hearing, the appellant's produced Xerox copies of the various pages of the Maruthuva Sudar, which referred to the various ingredients and their medicinal and therapeutic properties.

(ii)   The usage of very minor quantities of synthetic essential oil cannot and would not remove the properties of an ayurvedic/siddha medicament; in this view of the matter the Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. CCE - 1994(03)LCX0018 Eq 1994 (071) ELT 1069 held that in the case of Hajmola Candy which contains 25% active ingredients as per ayurvedic texts and 75% sugar for taste and as a preservative would still be classifiable as an ayurvedic medicament under 3003.30 and not as sugar confectionary.

(iii)   Coconut oil is used as the medium through which the various siddha medicaments is synthesized and conveyed.

(iv)   The Supreme Court in the case of BPL Pharmaceuticals, 1995 (077) ELT 485 held that selsun shampoo which contains added perfume to neutralise the unpleasant smell of selenium sulfide held that the product in question having regard to the preparation label, literature, common and commercial parlance and understanding would only merit classification as a medicament.

(v)   The definition of medicament as per the chapter heading and the chapter note read with CBEC Circular 379/12/98, dated 16-3-98 [1998 (099) ELT T7] would clearly bring out the aspect that the impugned product is a medicament only.

(vi)   The product in question is a mixture of the various ingredients for their therapeutic or prophylatic use. They remain a siddha medicament within the definition as long as all the ingredients of the product find mention in authoritative books on a siddha medicines. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE, 1988 (035) ELT 424 supports their view.

(vii)   The absence of a formula of an ayurvedic medicament is not a material factor where the relationship of various ingredients have been narrated and such ingredients are considered and taken from authoritative books on Indian medicine, as seen from the decision of CCE v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. - 1998 (097) ELT 152.

(viii)   The Drug Controller has confirmed the use of the various siddha ingredients meant for therapeutic use; further there is ample material made available in support that the ingredients used are essentially siddha medicaments; as the product is not sold under any name specified in the siddha text, the product is not a classical siddha medicament but still would be a patent and proprietary siddha medicament. Sub-heading 3003.30 covers both classical as well as patent or proprietary medicaments. The Tribunals have come to the conclusion that the ingredients and their effects as discussed in the authoritative books would be sufficient to classify the same as an ayurvedic or a siddha medicament and that the absence of a specific formula is not material. The Apex Court decision in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. v. CCE - 1995(03)LCX0150 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0500 (S.C.) would approve the correctness of the Tribunal’s decision.

(ix)   The lower adjudicating authority's reference to certain decisions in his order is not correct as the same has since been overruled in the case of Mistair Home Products v. CCE - 2001 (134) ELT 488 which follows the earlier Delhi High Court decision in the case of Manisha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1999(05)LCX0161 Eq 1999 (112) ELT 0022 (Delhi). It may also be mentioned that as early as 1988 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had in the State v. Keduri Satyanarayana & Co. - 1988 (68) STC 233 (AP) held that prickly heat powder is not a cosmetic but a medicament.

(x)     It is accepted that all the ingredients have the distinct character of medicaments and are used for medicinal preparations; the ingredients are in therapeutic quantities; the Coconut oil used is merely as a medium for active ingredients to reach the scalp to provide necessary relief and hence the product can only be classified as a medicament. In this view of the matter, there are several other decisions which are in favour of classification as a medicament :

(a) Ramakrishna Vidyut Ayurvedic Pharmacy - 2000 (118) ELT 618 re : medicinal oil

(b) CCE v. Pharmasia (P) Ltd. - 1990 (047) ELT 658 re : anti-lice treatment

(c) CCE v. Nicholas Lab (India) Ltd. - 1991 (056) ELT 843 re : melalite cream - skin cream

(d) Collector v. Ramakrishna Vidyut - 2000 (125) ELT 748 re : maha bhringaraj oil is an ayurvedic medicine and not a cosmetic

(e) Bakson Homeo Pharmacy v. CCE - 2001 (136) ELT 485 re : Arnica Hair Oil classifiable as a medicament only.

(xi)   The impugned product is advertised as a medicament; is labelled as a medicament; has the siddha ingredients mentioned on the product packaging.

(xii)   They referred to the citation supra wherein the Tribunal specifically held that vicks vaporub and vicks inhaler would merit classification as an ayurvedic medicament inasmuch as all the ingredients of the final product finds mention in authoritative books on ayurveda.

(xiii)   The product in question finds use in the treatment of skin disorders. The therapeutic properties have been specified in various affidavits of doctors.

(xiv)   Lower adjudicating authority by merely asserting that the product is perceived as a cosmetic would not make it one such. The packing of the product would reveal that the manufacturer only specifies that the product to be a siddha medicine; it could be refuted that the impugned product would not be available in a posh commercial establishment where normal cosmetics are being sold but would only be available in shops which sell medicaments and Indian medicines. Moreover, the Drug Controller, the proper authority has confirmed the status of the product as a medicament after proper clinical trials. The impugned product is marketed as a medicament as seen from the packaging. These medicaments are sold as over the counter products and particularly as they are not schedule drugs. Siddha medicaments can be advertised while only the scheduled drugs cannot be advertised.

(xv)   The coconut oil is used as a medium and thus, the usage of the coconut oil alone would not move the final product from a medicament to a cosmetic; the therapeutic properties of the various ingredients in the mixture would clearly enable classification as a medicament. In the case of Panama Chemical Works where only 3% was active ayurvedic ingredients and the balance being liquid glucose, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the product in question was only a medicament - 1992 (062) ELT 241.

4. I have considered the facts and submissions connected with the impugned classification of the product. I have perused the various affidavits and the Drug Controller’s licence. It has been specified in the Drug Controller’s licence that the labels and cartons should comply with the drug rules as also the provisions of “Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954”. The drug certificate is in Form 26-D specifying that the product is a Siddha medicament. The certificate issued by Dr. K. Natarajan, Head of the Department of Siddha, Government Anna Hospital, specifies that the product is a Siddha medicine. Dr. S. Gopalakrishnan, Superintendent, Arignar Anna Govt. Hospital of Indian Medicine, has stated that the product is a Siddha medicament and the same is purchased, prescribed and dispensed in the C.G.H.S. Hospital throughout the country. It has been held by various decisions that a certificate granted by a competent authority is binding on the Department. Some of these decisions are :

(a)   Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Appellate Collector of Customs - 1990 (049) ELT 190

(b)   Overseas Cycle Co. v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (058) ELT 248

(c)   East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1962(05)LCX0001 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1342 (S.C.)

(d)   Union of India v Sompat Raj Dugar - 1992(01)LCX0029 Eq 1992 (058) ELT 0163 (S.C.)

Purchase orders of the Directorate of Medical and Health Service, PHC Moti Daman of the Administration of Daman and Diu in File No. DMHS/DD/AYU-MED-2001-2002 was submitted for perusal and appreciation.

5. CBEC Circular 379/12/98-CX., dated 16-3-98 - 1998 (099) ELT T7 outlines how the classification of medicaments particularly those of Unani, Ayurvedic, Siddha or Homeopathic system of medicine ought to be considered. In addition, the Larger Bench decision in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra reported in [2001(12)LCX0157 Eq 2002 (139) ELT 0610 (T-LB) = 2002 (048) RLT 264]; wherein it has been specified that when the ingredients of the final product have been exclusively mentioned in the authoritative text books on ayurveda and even though the product had been manufactured neither as per the formula prescribed in the books nor sold under the name specified therein, yet, as ayurvedic ingredients have been used and inasmuch as a drug licence has been given by the drug controller the resultant product can only be a medicinal oil and not hair oil. It may be mentioned that the ayurvedic medicament is not a classical one, but yet, would be classifiable only under 3003.30 as a medicament and not under 3305.10 as a cosmetic. This aspect of law, as propounded by the Larger Bench would be directly applicable the facts of the present case.

6. The CBEC vide Circular No. 333/49/97-CX., dated 10-9-97, reported in 1997 (095) ELT T14, has specified as follows :

“It has been decided that all assessments of products claimed to be ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 should be re-examined by the Commissioners of Central Excise whether manufactured under a drug licence or not so as to redetermine their classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the purpose the following facts may be kept in view :

• The perception of the product in popular parlance, whether as medicaments or cosmetics/toilet requisite. The advertising, marketing and the manner in which the product is put up may also be taken into consideration.

• It may be ascertained that the products claimed to be medicaments, should have substantial therapeutic claims which are not subsidiary in nature and the mode of prescription and use should be similar to that of a medicine/drug. It may be noted that medicaments are normally prescribed in doses, for a limited time, and for specific conditions/ailments.

• The drug licence may be used as a guide for the classification of a product but not as the determining factor. The classification of a product under Chapter 30 or Chapter 33 may be done as per the Rules of Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with Chapter Note 1(d) to Chapter 30 and Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 33.

This circular supersedes all previous circulars/instructions issued by the Board regarding classification of any product claimed as ayurvedic medicine except in cases where there are specific orders regarding classification of certain products from Courts/Tribunal which are in force. A list of all products claimed as ayurvedic medicines in your Commissionerates may be prepared and the classification of these products may be reviewed in the light of the above instructions.”

7. Again in Circular No. 196/30/96-CX., dated 3-4-96, it has been stated that as long as the product has been certified by the appropriate Drug Authority to be a drug and that, it should specified following conditions :

•        “The medicament has been prepared in accordance with the formulae prescribed in the authoritative text books; and

•        The ingredients added, other than those prescribed in the authoritative text books, should not have any therapeutic value.

Needless to say that for availing the benefit of exemption, the ayurvedic medicament should be sold under the generic name as specified in authoritative text books.”

8. The Tribunal in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2000(12)LCX0213 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0218 (Tri. - Mumbai) has held Ayurvedic medicines manufactured exclusively in accordance with formula described in authoritative books specified in First Schedule to Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.31 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and tests for medicaments specified in Note 2 to Chapter 30 ibid are not required to be satisfied.

9. The Tribunal in the case of Collector v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. - 1989(02)LCX0006 Eq 1989 (042) ELT 0033 (Tribunal) held that for any formulation to be considered as Ayurvedic medicine, the same should be either recognized so in a standard Ayurvedic work or should be so proved by clinical trials or should be recognized so by any authority like DGHS.

10. Formula for medicament as such though not described in any text-book, the relationship of the various ingredients with each other has been narrated therein. Where property of each component is narrated and where their mutual relationship is specified to facilitate creation of components therefrom, the absence of a specific formula may not be material, and the resultant product is only a medicament and not a cosmetic - Collector v. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. - 1997(09)LCX0128 Eq 1998 (097) ELT 0152 (Tribunal).

11. In the absence of statutory definition of ayurvedic medicines, scientific and technical aspect of the product is to be determined with the aid of ‘definition’ in Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Active ingredients conforming to standard Siddha texts are sufficient to treat the product as ‘Siddha Medicine.’

12. It was held in the case of Ishaan Research Lab. (P) Ltd. v. Collector -2000(08)LCX0084 Eq 2001 (137) ELT 0293 (Tri. - Del.) that products intended to cure or prevent ailments or diseases like scalp infections, eczema, psoriasis, pigmentation, foot infections, alopecia, etc., to be treated as ‘Ayurvedic Medicaments’ and classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

13. The Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-I v. M/s. Dabur India Ltd. - 2002(04)LCX0203 Eq 2002 (144) ELT 0365 (Tri - Del) has held that :

”Hajmola Tablets with 75% active ingredients as per Ayurvedic texts and 25% sugar for taste is classifiable as Ayurvedic Medicine under sub-heading 3003.39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not as edible preparation under sub-heading 2108.99 ibid”;

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar on 6-9-2002 dismissed the Civil Appeal Nos. 5172-5177 of 2002 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the above CEGAT Final Order Nos. 67-72/2002-C, dated 12-4-2002.

15. The Tribunal in its impugned order had held that “Hajmola tablets with 75% active ingredients as per Ayurvedic Medicine under sub heading 3003.39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not as edible preparation under sub-heading 2108.99 ibid 2002(09)LCX0261 Eq 2002 (146) ELT A311 (S.C.).

16. In the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra & Anr. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2001(12)LCX0157 Eq 2002 (139) ELT 0610 (Tri. - LB) = 2002 (048) RLT 0264 (CEGAT-LB), the Larger Bench decision has held :

“Classification - Central Excise - ‘Himtaj Tel’ - Containing ingredient exclusively mentioned in authoritative text books on Ayurveda, but neither manufactured according to formulae described therein nor sold under the name specified therein - Ayurvedic ingredients confirmed by issue of drug licence by Drug Controller - A medicinal oil and not hair oil - An Ayurvedic medicine though not a classical one - Classifiable under Heading 3003.30 of CETA, 1985 and not under Heading 3305.10 ibid”.

17. Respectfully following the above decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned product in question is a Siddha medicament meriting classification under heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under 3305.10 ibid. Accordingly, I set aside the order-in-original with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

18. Appeal allowed.

Equivalent 2003 (154) ELT 308 (Commr. Appl.)