CA Urvashi Porwal
Brief of the Case
In the case of Mayar India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-II, it was held that for claiming the exemption of excise duty on ayurvedic product, there is no condition that the product to be sold exclusively in the name mentioned in the textbooks. The mention of the house name/ brand-name cannot lead to the conclusion that these products are not sold in the name specified in Ayurvedic text and accordingly exemption is applicable.
Facts of the Case
The appellant/assessee are engaged in the manufacture of various Ayurvedic medicines like Neem, Boswellia, Serrata, Ashwagandha, Gymnema, etc. They classified these items under tariff heading 3003.31 and claimed full exemption. Revenue felt that these products are rightly classifiable under tariff heading 3003.39 and liable to duty as “Patent or Proprietary Medicament”. The reason for such claim is that these products carried trade name “Sivananda” and “Om” and hence appeared to have been sold as P or P medicines.
Proceeding initiated against the appellant/assessee for the period 2002-03 to 28.11.2004 resulted in order dated 30.03.2005. The original authority classified these products under tariff heading 3003.39 and confirmed duty liability and imposed equal amount of penalty also. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this order the appellant/assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
In two other proceedings the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the appellant/ assessee’s claim for classification under tariff heading 3003.31 for Chawanprash and other Ayurvedic medicines mentioned earlier in the order. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed two appeals.
Contentions of the Assessee
