ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The assessees were manufacturing a medicinal preparation called “Softovac”. Their claim for classification under Heading 3003.30 was not accepted by the Assistant Collector who classified the same under Heading 3003.10. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the contention that even if the same was sold under a Trade name, it was an Ayurvedic medicament and set aside the lower order. The Revenue have come up in appeal against this order of the Collector.
2. Shri H.K. Jain, SDR amplifying on the submissions made in the appeal memorandum stated that authoritative books show the seed of Isafgol as therapeutic material and not the husk which is the major ingredient in the contested medicine. It was argued that the major ingredients were not known in the common parlance as ayurvedic medicine nor is the product manufactured exclusively as per the formula prescribed in the Authoritative Text Books. Shri C.L. Lodha, Advocate placed before us extracts from a number of Ayurvedic Texts to show that all the ingredients were described thereunder. He submitted that various texts show that ingredients should be used in combination along with other ingredient in order to enhance their therapeutic use as also to eliminate undesirable side effects. Both sides placed before us a number of citation of orders made by the Tribunal as well as by the Courts, to support their respective arguments.
3. We have carefully perused the citations and have also seen various extracts of Standard Books placed before us. We have also seen the affidavits filed by three experts in Ayurveda which affidavits were also placed before the Collector also.
4. Although the appeal memorandum relied upon the test prescribed by the Tribunal as to what constituted Ayurvedic preparation no citation has been made therein of any case law. Shri Jain suggests that reference is made to Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. -1991 (51) E.L.T. 502 (Tribunal). We have seen this judgment, where the issue before the Tribunal was whether Tooth [powder] meant for cleaning teeth was a Drug or a Ayurvedic medicine. Finding of the Tribunal was in the negative. We find little or no relevance of the judgment to the facts before us. The substance in context before us is a preparation to be ingested specifically for elimination of constipation. We find that the parameters as to be what constitute Ayurvedic medicine was given by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. -1989 (42) E.L.T. 33. One criterion was that it should find recognition in a standard Ayurvedic work. The respondent has placed before us citations and extracts from a number of Authoritative volumes on Ayurveda. The list of the Titles is as follows :-
1. Dravyagnana Vignan Nighantu by Acharya P.V. Sharma.
2. Bhavprakash Nighatu.
3. Indian Materia Medica by Dr. A.K. Nadharni, Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
4. Shaligram Nighantu (Parishisht).
5. Nighantu Adarsh.
6. Medicinal Plants of India by ICMR, Delhi.
7. Ayurveda Vignan Nighantu.
8. Sidhhabheshaj Manimala.
9. Kaiyadev Nighantu.
10. Dhanwantari Nighantu.
We have perused the reference to the various ingredients forming part of the contested goods and we find that almost all the ingredients are mentioned and described in the standard work on Ayurveda placed before us. Although that issue is not before us, we take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. -1995 (77) E.L.T. 500 to the effect that if certain ingredients are known both to Ayurvedic and western sciences as long as they are used in making the medicines, the status of the end product as Ayurvedic medicine is not taken away. We also find that where sugar which was possibily not a Ayurvedic ingredient was used in Ayurvedic preparation in the following two cases such use of sugar has not been held to be coming in the way of classification of the end product as Ayurvedic medicine.
(1) Dabur India Ltd. – 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1069.
(2) Panama Chemical Works -1992 (62) E.L.T. 241.
5. As regards the formula, we find that although the formula as such is not described in any text placed before us, the relationship of the various ingredients with each other has been narrated therein and suggestion has been made for use of a particular ingredient to reduce the harmful side effects of the other ingredients. Thus, rose petals are used as coolant and reduce the side effect of the administration of Senna (Sonamukhi) where the property of each component is narrated, and where their mutual relationship is specified, and where this is done to facilitate creation of compounds therefrom. The absence of a specific formula may not be material.
6. We also find that three experts in Ayurveda in their affidavits submitted by the assessees before the Collector (Appeals) had certified that various ingredients as well as end preparation were Ayurvedic in nature and known as medicine in the Ayurvedic system. Tribunal also in prescribing the guidelines as to what constituted Ayurvedic medicine had held that-Expert’s advice like DGHS is of importance.
7. Thus, on perusal of the cited judgment and also on perusal of the extracts of Text Books and the testimony of the experts, we uphold the belief of the Collector that medicine “Softovac” was Ayurvedic preparation and, accordingly, the appeal from the Revenue is dismissed.