M/S. DABUR (INDIA) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 01-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA, AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS. DABUR (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR 
APRIL I, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985--Chapter 30, Note 1 (d) and Chapter 33: 
Classification-'Janam Ghunti '-Assessee claiming that their product 
C 'Janam Ghunti" is neither a distillate nor a solution but is an extraction-
Held: The matter requires enquiry into the manufacturing process and 
composition of the product-Hence, Tribunal.was right in remitiing back the 
matter for fresh decision. 
D 
Classification-'Lal .Tail '-,-Assessee having the Drug Controller's .licence 
for the product 'Lal Tail'-Ayurvedic Doctors prescribing Lal Tail for treatment 
of rickets also put on record-Thus Tribunal was right in holding that the 
product is a medicament and classifiable under chapter 30. 
Classification of goods-Basis of determination-Guiding factor-Held: 
E The product to be classified according to the popular meaning attached to it 
by its user-Resort not to be made to the scientific and technical meaning. 
Question~ which arose for consideration in these appeals are whether 
the Tribunal was justified in remitting back the matter for fresh decision 
in respect of classification of the product 'Janam Ghunti' and whether 
F the Tribunal has rightly classified the product 'Lal Tail' under chapter 
Heading 33.04 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : t. There is no infirmity in the Order of the Tribunal in 
G . remitting back the matter to the original authority for fresh decision o.n 
classification of the product 'Janam Ghunti'. Chapter Note 1. (c) of 
Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 states that Chapter 30 does 
not apply to aqueous distillates or aqueous solutions of essential oils even 
though they are suitable for medicinal uses. Further, under Chapter Note 
H 
144 
DABUR (INDIA) LTD. v. C.C.E. JAMSHEDPUR 
145 
l.(d) of Chapter 30 preparations of Chapter 33 would not fall under A 
Chapter 30 even if they have therapeutic or prophylactic properties. The 
Tribunal has, therefore, correctly held that if 'Janam Ghunti' is an 
aqueous distillates or aqueous solutions of essential oils it would fall under 
Chapter 33 even though it may have therapeutic or prophylactic 
properties. The Appellants have claimed that their product 'Janam 
Ghunti' is neither a distillate nor a solution but is an extraction. However, B 
this is a matter which requires inquiry into. Therefore, the finding of the 
Tribunal that this would require looking into the process of manufacture, 
the composition of the product and that classification of this product 
cannot be decided upon without chemical test of the product, is upheld. 
(146-C-F] C 
2. In classifying a product the scientific and technical meaning is not 
to be resorted to. The product must be.classified according to the popular 
meaning attache~ to it by those using the product. The Appellants have 
shown that all the ingredients in the product 'Lal Tail' are those which 
are mentioned in Ayurvedic Text Books. This by itself may not be sufficient D 
but the Appellants have shown that they have a Drug Controller's Licence 
for the product and they have also produced evidence by way of 
prescriptions of Ayurvedic Doctors, who have prescribed these for 
treatment of rickets. The Revenue has not made any effort and not 
produced any evidence that in common parlance the product is not E 
understood.as a medicament. Hence, the product would be a medicament 
and classifiable as such under Chapter 30. [150-C-F] 
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd v. Collector of Central &'Cise, 
Nagpur, (1996) 83 ELT 492 S.C.; Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-
/Vv. Pandit D.P. Sharma, (2003) 154 ELT 324 SC; Commissioner o/Central p 
Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works, (2003) 154 ELT 328 SC and 
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, v. Vicco Laboratories, (2005) 179 
EL T 17 SC, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7907 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2002 of the Central Excise, 
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Eastern Bench at Kolkata in 
F.O. No. A-692/2002/KOL/ in A. No. E/386 of 2001. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6755, 6867/2003 and 1591 of 2005. 
G 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav and Rajesh Kumar for the Appellant. 
B 
Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv., Tufail A.Khan, S. Beno Bencigar, P. Parmeswaran 
and B.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.