BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN LIMITED BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN LIMITED DABUR DR S K BURMAN PVT LIMITED DABUR DRS K BURMAN PVT LIMITED BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE NAGPUR:COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE PATNA:UNION OF INDIA:COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three appeals the short question arising for consideration is whether Dant Manjan Lal manufactured by the appellant-company falls within the meaning of an Ayurvedic Medicine to qualify for exemption from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 62/78-CE dated 1/3/1978 issued in exercise of power conferred by Rule 8 (1 of the central Excise Rules, 1944. The relevant entry introduced by amendment reads as "all drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified". The appellant contends that the product in question is a scientific medicine which would attract the aforesaid entry and would, therefore, be exempted from the payment of excise duty. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, New Delhi, by a detailed order came to the conclusion that in common parlance the product in question could not be described as a medicinal preparation and that it could rightly be described as a toilet preparation. In that view of the matter the tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant for exemption from payment of excise duty under the aforementioned notification. It is this view of the tribunal which has been assailed before us in these appeals.

(2.) The ingredients for the product in question are stated to be Geru (red earth) to the extent of 70% which is stated to have a cooling quality but the tribunal noticed that it is largely used as a filler or colouring agent and is not described as a medicine in common parlance. After going through the various texts, the definition of 'drug' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and ayurvedic books as well as opinion of experts in this behalf, the tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion that the product in question could not be described as a medicinal preparation and accordingly rejected the claim of the appellant.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel at some length. He also invited our attention to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the opinion of the experts, the statements of a few consumers as well as the description given in certain Ayurvedic books and contended that the preparation would fall within the relevant entry in the exemption notification. The tribunal rightly points out that in interpreting statutes like the Excise Act the primary object of which is to raise revenue and for which purpose various products are differently classified, resort should not be had to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms and expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say the meaning attached to them by those using the product. It is for this reason that the tribunal came to the conclusion that scientific and technical meanings would not advance the case of the appellants if the same runs counter to how the product is understood in popular parlance. That is why the tribunal observed in para 86 of the judgment as under: