COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-IV versus M/S. PANDIT D.P. SHARMA

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 30-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. CALCUTTA-IV 
A 
V. 
M/S. PANDIT D.P. SHARMA 
APRIL 30, 2003 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.) 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944-Tari.lf Item 3003.30-Himtaj oil-
C/assiflcation of whether 'Ayurvedic medicine' or 'perfumed hair oil '-Held, 
in the facts of the case the oil is an 'Ayurvedic medicament'. 
Respondent, the manufacturer of the 'Himtaj oil' filed classification 
B 
c 
list classifying the oil as Ayurvedic medicine under sub Heading 3003.30. 
Show cause notice was issued as to why the oil should not be classified as 
perfumed hair oil under sub-heading 3305.10. 
Assistant Collector after 
considering certain materials which showed that the oil was an Ayurvedic . D 
medicine held that the oil fell under sub-heading 3003.30. Commissioner 
(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Revenue holding 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; 
and that there was no evidence to show that the common man used the 
product as a medicine. l{espondent's appeal to Customs Excise and Gold E 
(Control) Appellate Tribunal was allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the present case, the report of the Range Officer shows F 
that dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customer, chemists and druggist all 
consider "Himtaj oil" to be an Ayurvedic medicament. Apart from that 
the other material relied upon by the Assistant Collector also clearly shows 
that "Himtaj oil" is an Ayurvedic medicament. In this view of the matter 
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. 11043-H; 1044-AI 
Shree Bail~Fanath Bhavan lid v. The Collector of Ce/1/ral Excise, 
Nagpur, 11996183 ELT 492 (SC), distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1512 of2001. 
1041 
G 
H 
1042 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgnient and Order dated 19.5.2000 of the Customs Excise, 
B 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in A.No. E/R-428/97 in 
F.O.No.A/629-Kol/2000. 
Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitior General, Sanjiv Sen, Ashok 
K. Srivastava, K. Swami and B.K. Prasad for the Appellant. 
Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill Indeevar and Mrs. Sumita 
Mukherjee for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
S.N. V ARIA VA J. This appeal is against the Judgment dt. 19th May 
2000 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 
Calcutta. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows : 
D 
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 
E subheading 3003.30. For so holding the Assistant Collector inter a/ia relied 
on the following material: 
(a} Drug licence issued by the Drug Controller. 
(b) A letter issued by the Superintendent of Ayurvedic Department, 
F 
Benaras which stated that the product was an Ayurvedic medicine. 
G 
H 
(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 inquires 
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" 
, ... 
-
---
-· 
l 
C.C.E. v. PANDIT D.P. SHARMA lS.N. VARIAVA. J.] 
I 043 
(f) SSI Registration Certificate obtained by the Respondents for A 
manufacturing Ayurvedic oil under a drug licence. 
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) he j that there was no evidence to prove that the B 
product was being ordinari:: prescribed by medical practitioners or that it 
was 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.