COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT versus M/S. MAHARSHI AYURVEDA CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 07-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT 
v. 
MIS. MAHARSHI A YURVEDA CORPORATION LTD. 
DECEMBER 7, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Chapter Headings 2001.90 and 2107-
2108.90; Notification No.2194/Rules of Interpretation of Schedule I; Rule 
3(a): 
A 
B 
c 
Classification-Harbonic Tonic-Tariff headings 2001.90 or 21071 
2108.90-Held: Sub-heading 2108.90 covers other edible preparation not 
covered elsewhere as such residuary in nature-The product in question 
covered under specific entry 2001.90 since it is mixture of different vegetation 
which could be consumed as such-Thus exclusionary note under heading D 
20. 08 of Chapter 20 of Harmonised system of Nomenclature not applicable-
Since the product in question covered under specific entry. under Chapter 20, 
resort cannot be made to the residuary entry under chapter 21-Hence, 
Tribunal rightly classified the product under Chapter 20 of the Act for 
levying excise duty. 
The respondents/assessee manufacturer of Ayurvedic Medicament had 
filed a classification list ~n respect of the product "Herbonic" under sub-
heading 2001.90 declaring the same to be a preparation of vegetables, nuts 
E 
and other parts of plants and fruits/seeds claiming nil rate of duty under 
Notification No.2/94. According to the Revenue the product merits 
classification under sub-heading 210'7.91 chargeable to duty at the rate of F 
20% ad valorem. Later, the product was reclassified by the Revenue under 
sub-head~ng 2108.90 and after issuing show cause notices to respondents 
confirmed the demand of differential amount of duty. Appellate authorities 
affirmed the Order. Aggrieved, assessee/respondents preferred appeals before 
the tribunal. Tribunal held the product "Herbonic" classifiable specifically G 
under sub-heading 2001.90 as against entries in Chapter 21 which is a 
residuary .general heading. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-Revenue contended that since· the expression used in the Tariff 
Act and HSN (Harmonised System of Nomenclature) is the same, the meaning 
~7 
H' 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A which is expressly given in the HSN should be preferred in the absence of 
anything to the contrary given in the Central Excise Tariff Act; that because 
"Herbonic" is a mixture ofvegetable origin and fruit origin raw material, 
the same gets specifically excluded from the provisions of Chapter 20.08 under 
HSN and therefore also from Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff; that 
"Herbonic" which is claimed to be a tonic and does not have any therapeutic 
B or prophylactic properties is specifically covered under Chapter heading 2106 
of the HSN and Chapter heading 21.07 or Chapter heading 21.08 (depending 
on the period involved) of the Central Excise Tariff and that the correct 
classification of the produce "Herbonic" should be under Chapter 210712108. 
Respondents submitted that Chapter Note 1 of Chapter 20 of the Tariff 
C Act is a specific entry which deals with preparation of vegetable, fruit or nuts 
where as Entry 21.08 in Chapter 21 is residuary. Since Chapter 20.01 is 
specific on such preparation the product should be covered by this description 
and qualifies for classification under Chapter heading 20.01; that Since the 
respondent's preparation is covered specifically by entries in Chapter 20, the 
D same should be preferred to the residuary clause in Chapter 21 which is of 
general description. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Since the product "Herbonic" is mixture of different 
E vegetation it is rightly been classified by the Tribunal under Chapter 20 of 
the Central Excise Tariff Act. (545-C) · 
1.2. Sub-heading 2107.91/2108.90 of the Tariff Act covers other edible 
preparations not elsewhere specified and as such is residuary in nature. As 
per Rule 3 (a) of the rules of interpretation of Schedule-I, the heading which 
F provides the specific description should be preferred to the heading providing 
a general description. Since in the present case the product is covered under 
specific entry under Chapter 20 resort cannot be made to the residuary entry. 
(545-E; 546-G) 
Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 
G (1990) (45) E.L.T. 525; Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Collector of 
Central Excise, (1991) 51 E.L.T. 165; Speedway Rubber Co. v. Commissioner 
of Central Excise, Chandigarh, (2002) 143 E.L.T. 8 and C.C. (General), New 
Delhi v. Gujarat Per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.