2003 JTR(SC) 529
2003 7 AIC 145 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 5697 ; 2003 154 ELT 324 ; 2003 4 JT 253 ; 2003 4 JT 353 ; 2003 4 Scale 445 ; 2003 5 SCC 288 ; 2003 3 SCR 1041 ; 2003 KHC 1024 ; 2003 3 Supreme 692
2003(3) Supreme 692
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Central Excise, Customs & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata)
S.N. Variava & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV -Appellant
versus
M/s. Pandit D.P. Sharma -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1512 of 2001
Decided on 30-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Sanjiv Sen, Ashok K. Srivastava, K. Swami and B.K. Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill Indeevar and Mrs. Sumita Mukherjee, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
"Himtaj oil" fell in the classification as "Ayurvedic medicine" for central excise.
(A) The statutory framework governing classification of goods for customs and excise purposes requires interpretation based on popular understanding rather than strict technical or scientific definitions. The relevant provisions contemplate that goods such as oils used medicinally are to be classified according to their ordinary use and perception. Where a product is held out as an Ayurvedic medicament supported by licensing, medical recognition, and market practice, it falls within the medicinal category rather than a perfumery or toilet preparation category. The interplay between drug licensing, professional endorsement, and common usage is central to determining the correct classification under the customs law.
(B) Key legal principles include: classification must align with ordinary understanding; evidence of medical prescription, licensing, and market perception is determinative; and technical non-detection of perfumery does not override widespread medicinal characterization if other indicia support medicinal identity.
Facts of the case:
The Respondents manufactured "Himtaj oil" and characterized it as an Ayurvedic medicine. They submitted a classification list placing the product under subheading 3003.30 (Ayurvedic medicine). A show cause notice questioned this classification, proposing placement under subheading 3305.10 (perfumed hair oil). The Respondents rebutted with evidence including a drug license, an Ayurvedic department letter, an academic study, a market inquiry report, a re-testing report indicating absence of perfumery, and an SSI registration. The Assistant Collector accepted the medicinal classification based on this material. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed, finding no evidence of medical prescription or common usage as medicine. CEGAT restored the Assistant Collectors view. In this Civil Appeal, the revenue challenged CEGATs order.
Findings of Court:
The Court reviewed the market evidence showing that dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers, and chemists uniformly regarded the product as an Ayurvedic medicament. It noted the supporting administrative and expert documentation and distinguished the present case from a prior holding where such evidence was absent. The Court held that the impugned judgment was not erroneous and that the revenues submissions, even when considered alongside related arguments on another product, were not sustainable.
Issues:
Whether "Himtaj oil" is an Ayurvedic medicine within customs classification head 3003.30 or a perfumed hair oil under head 3305.10, and whether the adjudicating authorities correctly evaluated the evidence of medical usage and market perception.
Ratio Decidendi:
Classification must follow popular and factual indicia of medicinal use; where administrative licensing, expert studies, and market practice consistently support a medicinal characterization, the product cannot be reclassified on the basis of a technical non-observation of perfumery. The onus on the revenue to show ordinary non-medicinal use was not met.
Result:
The Appeal is dismissed without order as to costs.
(A) The statutory framework governing classification of goods for customs and excise purposes requires interpretation based on popular understanding rather than strict technical or scientific definitions. The relevant provisions contemplate that goods such as oils used medicinally are to be classified according to their ordinary use and perception. Where a product is held out as an Ayurvedic medicament supported by licensing, medical recognition, and market practice, it falls within the medicinal category rather than a perfumery or toilet preparation category. The interplay between drug licensing, professional endorsement, and common usage is central to determining the correct classification under the customs law.
(B) Key legal principles include: classification must align with ordinary understanding; evidence of medical prescription, licensing, and market perception is determinative; and technical non-detection of perfumery does not override widespread medicinal characterization if other indicia support medicinal identity.
Facts of the case:
The Respondents manufactured "Himtaj oil" and characterized it as an Ayurvedic medicine. They submitted a classification list placing the product under subheading 3003.30 (Ayurvedic medicine). A show cause notice questioned this classification, proposing placement under subheading 3305.10 (perfumed hair oil). The Respondents rebutted with evidence including a drug license, an Ayurvedic department letter, an academic study, a market inquiry report, a re-testing report indicating absence of perfumery, and an SSI registration. The Assistant Collector accepted the medicinal classification based on this material. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed, finding no evidence of medical prescription or common usage as medicine. CEGAT restored the Assistant Collectors view. In this Civil Appeal, the revenue challenged CEGATs order.
Findings of Court:
The Court reviewed the market evidence showing that dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers, and chemists uniformly regarded the product as an Ayurvedic medicament. It noted the supporting administrative and expert documentation and distinguished the present case from a prior holding where such evidence was absent. The Court held that the impugned judgment was not erroneous and that the revenues submissions, even when considered alongside related arguments on another product, were not sustainable.
Issues:
Whether "Himtaj oil" is an Ayurvedic medicine within customs classification head 3003.30 or a perfumed hair oil under head 3305.10, and whether the adjudicating authorities correctly evaluated the evidence of medical usage and market perception.
Ratio Decidendi:
Classification must follow popular and factual indicia of medicinal use; where administrative licensing, expert studies, and market practice consistently support a medicinal characterization, the product cannot be reclassified on the basis of a technical non-observation of perfumery. The onus on the revenue to show ordinary non-medicinal use was not met.
Result:
The Appeal is dismissed without order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.-This appeal is against the Judgment dt. 19th May 2000 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The Respondents are manufacturing a product known as "Himtaj oil". The Respondents filed a classification list classifying "Himtaj oil" as Ayurvedic medicine under subheading 3003.30. A show cause notice was issued to them as to why their oil should not be classified as "perfumed hair oil" under subheading 3305.10. The Respondents replied to the show cause notice. The Assistant Collector accepted the Respondents case that their oil fell under subheading 3003.30. For so holding the Assistant Collector inter alia relied on the following material :
(a) Drug licence issued by the Drug Controller.
(b) A letter issued by the Superintendent of Ayurvedic Department, Benaras which stated that the product was an Ayurvedic medicine.
(c) A study report of the Institute of Postgraduate Education and Research in Ayurved, Calcutta on "Himtaj oil" which classified this oil as an Ayurvedic product which relieved pain in headaches and migraine and also provided relief against dandruff.
(d) A report prepared by the Range Officer, based on market inquiries conducted by him with dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers, chemists and druggist, which showed that all treated "Himtaj oil" as an Ayurvedic Medicament.
(e) A re-testing Report of the Chief Chemist, New Delhi which stated that no Ayurvedic perfumery could be detected in "Himtaj oil".
(f) SSI Registration Certificate obtained by the Respondents for manufacturing Ayurvedic oil under a drug licence.
3. Against the decision of the Assistant Collector the revenue filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). By his order dated 10th July, 1997 the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no evidence to prove that the product was being ordinarily prescribed by medical practitioners or that it was used to deal with a specific disease. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no evidence to show that the common man used the product as a medicine.
4. Against the Order dated 10th July 1997 the Respondents filed an Appeal to CEGAT. By the impugned order CEGAT has allowed the Appeal. Hence this Appeal by the revenue.
5. At the stage it must be mentioned that in this Civil Appeal the question of classification relates to "Himtaj oil". On board along with this Appeal were a number of other Appeals which related to classification of "Bhanphool oil". The arguments of learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, in this Appeal were based upon the submissions made in respect of "Bhanphool oil". It was submitted that if the submissions regarding "Bhanphool oil" are accepted by this Court then on the same reasoning it would have to be held that "Himtaj oil" was not an Ayurvedic medicament. Reliance was also placed upon the authority of this Court in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurvedic Bhavan Ltd. versus The Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 1996(83) ELT 492 (SC). In this case it is held that resort to scientific and technical meanings should not be had but that the expression must be understood in its popular meaning. It was held that ordinarily a medicine would be prescribed by medical practitioner and would be used for a limited time and not every day unless it was so prescribed to deal with a specific disease like diabetes. On this basis it was held that the product in question namely "Dant Manjan Lal" (tooth powder) was not a medicine.
6. We have today, by a separate judgment, negatived the submissions of the revenue in respect of "Bhanphool oil". Thus for reasons set out in that separate judgment the arguments of the revenue even in respect of "Himtaj oil" cannot be accepted. The authority relied upon is also of no assistance. In that case there was no evidence to show that the common man considered that product as a medicine. In this case the report of the Range Officer shows that dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers, chemists and druggist all consider "Himtaj oil" to be an Ayurvedic medicament. Apart from that the other material relied upon by the Assistant Collector (which has been set out hereinabove) also clearly shows that "Himtraj oil" is an Ayurvedic medicament. In this view of the matter we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
7. Accordingly the Appeal stands dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
**************