DABUR INDIA LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment as the point involved is the same. The dispute is regarding classification of two items manufactured by the appellants, namely, (1) Lal Tail; and (2) Janam Ghunti. The Tribunal has held that the product Lal Tail is classifiable under Chapter heading 33. 04. As regards 'janam Ghunti', the matter has been remitted back to the original authority for a fresh decision.

(2.) We have heard the parties. In our view, there is no infirmity in the order of the tribunal insofar as it remits the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision on classification of the product 'janam ghunti'. Chapter Note 1. (c) of Chapter 30 states that Chapter 30 does not apply to aqueous distillates or aqueous solutions of essential oils even though they are suitable for medicinal uses. Further, under chapter Note 1. (d) of Chapter 30 preparations of Chapter 33 would not fall under Chapter 30 even if they have therapeutic or prophylactic properties. The Tribunal has, therefore, correctly held that if 'janam Ghunti' is an aqueous distillates or aqueous solutions of essential oils it would fall under Chapter 33 even though it may have therapeutic or prophylactic properties. The appellants have claimed that their product 'janam ghunti' is neither a distillate nor a solution but is an extraction. However, this is a matter which requires inquiry into. We approve the finding of the Tribunal that this would require looking into the process of manufacture, the composition of the product and that classification of this product cannot be decided upon without chemical test of the product. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to this extent and the same is upheld.

(3.) As regards 'lal Tail', Mr. Lakshmikumaran has pointed out that this product has all the ingredients mentioned in Ayurvedic Text Books. The product also has a Drug Controller's Licence. The appellants have also filed evidence by way of prescriptions of Ayurvedic Doctors to show that their product has therapeutic or prophylactic properties and is used as a drug. As against this the Respondents have admittedly led no evidence or produced any material to show that in the market this product is not considered to be a drug.