{"id":82647,"date":"2003-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-03T21:11:34","modified_gmt":"2017-06-03T15:41:34","slug":"ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2072 of 1996\nAppeal (civil)  10744 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd. \t\t\t             \n\nRESPONDENT:\nCollector of Central Excise,  Hyderabad\t\t\t             \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/11\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nP. Venkatarama Reddi & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe points involved in both the appeals are one and the same and, therefore,
\nthey were heard together by consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
The issue involved in Civil Appeal No. 2072 of 1996 is:\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether or not medicated cough drops and throat drops manufactured by the
\nappellants in accordance with and under the licence issued under the Drugs and
\nCosmetics Act, 1940 for the manufacture of “Ayurvedic Drugs” are classifiable as
\nAyurvedic Medicaments for the purpose of levy of central excise duty.
\n\tThe issue for determination in Civil Appeal No. 10744 of 1996 is:
\n\tWhether the products “Sloan’s Balm” and “Sloan’s Rub” are ayurvedic medicines
\nand are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3003-30 as contended by the appellants
\nattracting nil rate duty OR Classified under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 chargeable to
\nduty at 15% ad valorem.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts briefly stated in Civil Appeal No. 2072 of 1996 leading to the filing of
\nthis appeal are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants – M\/s Naturalle Health Products (P) Limited, Hyderabad filed the
\nclassification list as required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with
\nthe Assistant Collector of Central Excise claiming classification of their goods under
\nsub-heading 3003.30 read with erstwhile notification No. 32\/89-CE dated 01.03.1989.
\nThe appellants were issued a loan licence to manufacture for sale of Ayurvedic drugs
\nunder the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the said loan licence was renewed from
\ntime to time.  A show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central
\nExcise calling upon the appellants to show cause why the said goods should not be
\nclassified as Patent or Proprietary Medicaments under sub-heading 3003.10 of Central
\nExcise Tariff attracting excise duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem.  The appellants
\nreplied to the show-cause notice and denied that the said goods are not Ayurvedic
\nMedicaments and submitted that the grounds raised in the show-cause notice were not
\nrelevant for determining the classification of the goods.  The Assistant Collector, after
\ngiving a personal hearing, vide Order dated 14.03.1991 held that the said goods are
\nclassifiable  as Patent or Proprietary Medicaments under sub-heading 3003.10 of the
\nCentral Excise Tariff and accordingly is assessable to duty thereon.  The appeal filed by
\nthe appellants before the Collector of Central Excise was dismissed on 21.02.1992
\nupholding the Order dated 14.03.1991 of the Assistant Collector.  The appellants
\nchallenged the said Order by filing Writ Petition No. 4030 of 1992 in the High Court of
\nAndhra Pradesh which was dismissed on 12.03.1993 on the ground of alternative
\nremedy.  The appellants filed an appeal to the CEGAT on the grounds set out in their
\nmemorandum of appeal.  The CEGAT, New Delhi by its final order dated 17.10.1995 by
\na majority of 2:1 dismissed the appeal and upheld the classification of the said goods as
\nPatent or Proprietary Medicaments under sub-heading 3003.10 instead of appellant’s
\nclaim as Ayurvedic medicine under sub-heading 3003.30.  The Vice-President opined
\nthat the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench keeping in view the importance of
\nthe issue involved in the industry as a whole.  However, he agreed with the
\nMember(Technical) on many points.   Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants
\npreferred the present appeal under Section 35 L(B) of the Central Excise and Salt Act,
\n1944.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 10744 of 1996
\nThe short facts are:\n<\/p>\n
The appellants manufactured two medicaments known as “Sloan’s Balm” and
\n“Slaon’s Rub” out of the ingredients which are mentioned in the texts on the Ayurvedic
\nsystem of medicine and in accordance with the principles therein.  According to the
\nappellants, the issues in their appeal stand covered by the decisions in the case of
\nRichardson Hindustan Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise,<\/a> 1988 (35) ELT 424
\n(T) as confirmed by this Court reported in 1989 (42) ELT  A100 and the decision in the
\ncase of Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Limited vs. Collector of Central
\nExcise<\/a> reported in 1991 (51) ELT 502 and 1985 (22) ELT 844 which decisions have
\nbeen confirmed by this Court in 1996 (83) ELT 492  The appellants filed Exhibit B1-B3
\nlist of ‘authoritative texts’  in English, Hindi and Telugu on the Ayurvedic system of
\nMedicament in which the ingredients of the two products are mentioned.  They also filed
\nExhibits C1 and C2 Licences issued by the Director, Indian Medicines and
\nHomeopathy, Hyderabad for the manufacture of Ayurvedic Medicine, namely, “Sloan’s
\nBalm and “Sloan’s Rub”.  The appellants filed classification list in respect of the said
\nproducts classifying the same under Chapter sub-heading 3003.30 as Ayurvedic
\nMedicine attracting nil rate of duty.  Two Show-cause notices were issued upon the
\nappellants to show cause as to why the said products should not be classified under
\nChapter sub-heading 3003.10 as patent or proprietary medicine attracting duty at 15 %
\nad valorem.  The appellants replied to the show-cause notice relying upon the
\nTribunal’s decision in the case of Richardson Hindustan Limited (supra).  The Assistant
\nCollector, however, classified both the products under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10
\nchargeable to duty at 15% ad valorem.  The appellants filed two appeals to the
\nCollector of Central Excise (Appeals) and also filed before the Collector (Appeals), a
\nreport in respect of clinical trials conducted in respect of the said two products.  The
\nCollector of Central Excise remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for de novo
\nadjudication.  The Assistant Collector issued two revised show-cause notices.  The
\nappellants sent a reply to the show-cause notices.  The Assistant Collector by two
\nseparate orders rejected the contentions of the appellants.  Two appeals were filed
\nbefore the Collector Central Excise (Appeals).  The Collector of Central Excise allowed
\nthe appeals and set aside both the orders of the Assistant Collector and upheld that the
\nproducts are ayurvedic medicines and are classifiable under Chapter heading 3003.30.
\nAggrieved by the said order, the Collector of Central Excise filed an appeal to the
\nCEGAT, which by its order allowed the appeal.  Aggrieved by the said decision of the
\nTribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants – Akin Laboratories
\nLtd.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe heard Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel and Mr. Joseph Vellapally,
\nlearned senior counsel for the respective appellants and Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
\nlearned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent in both the appeals.
\n\tMr. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel took us through the pleadings, exhibits
\nmarked and the relevant provisions of law and of the orders passed by the authorities
\nconcerned including the Tribunal and of this Court both for and against.  Mr. Joseph
\nVellapally,  learned senior counsel,  also invited our attention to the relevant records
\nand of the orders passed by the statutory authorities and of this Court in various
\ndecisions.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have perused the pleadings, annexures and the decisions cited by both
\nsides and heard elaborate arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Lakshmikumaran submitted that the authorities below rejected the
\nappellant’s claim on the basis of decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amrutanjan
\nLimited vs. Collector of Central Excise<\/a> 1991 (32) ECR 538.  The order of the Tribunal
\nin Amrutanjan Limited is, however, set aside by this Court in the case of Amrutanjan
\nLimited vs. Collector of Central Excise<\/a> reported in 1995 (77) ELT 500.  He would,
\ntherefore, contend that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the
\njudgement  of this Court in the case of Amrutanjan Limited (supra).  Notwithstanding the
\njudgment of this Court in Amrutanjan Limited (supra), the Tribunal by a majority of two
\nmembers to one dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the lower authorities
\nclassifying the cough drops and throat drops as patent or proprietary medicines.\n<\/p>\n
Before considering the arguments advanced by Mr. Lakshmikumaran, it is useful
\nto narrate certain facts in regard to the products manufactured by the appellants.  We
\nhave already noticed that the appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of
\nayurvedic drugs including medicated cough drops and vaporet throat drops on job work
\nbasis for Procter and Gamble India Limited (hereinafter referred to as PGIL) to market
\nthem under the brand name Vicks.  The said goods are manufactured by the appellants
\nin accordance with and under a loan licence issued to PGIL for manufacture of
\nayurvedic drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2072 of 1996, the following are
\nthe ingredients for the manufacture of the cough drops and throat drops:-\n<\/p>\n
Vicks Medicated\t\t\t\t\tVicks Vaporat\nCough Drops\t\t\t\t\tThroat Drops\nPudinah Arka\t\t\t\t\t\tPudinah Arka\nKarpoor\t\t\t\t\t\tNilgiri Tel\t\t\t\nAjowan Ke Phool\t\t\t\t\tSugar base\nSugar base\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tIn the two appeals, the classification of the medicines manufactured by them are
\nin dispute.  According to the appellants in both the appeals, the goods manufactured by
\nthem are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3003.30 (heading 30.03).  According
\nto the Revenue, the goods manufactured by both the appellants are to be classified
\nunder Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 chargeable to duty at 15 % ad valorem.
\nFor ready reference heading 30.03 is reproduced hereunder:
\nHeading
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-\n<\/p>\n
Heading
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
Description of Goods
\nRate of
\nDuty
\n30.03<\/p>\n
Medicaments (including
\nveterinary Medicaments)<\/p>\n
3003.10
\nPatent or proprietary
\nMedicaments, other than those
\nMedicaments which are
\nexclusively Ayurvedic, Unani,
\nSiddha, Homoeopathic or Bio-\n<\/p>\n
Chemic<\/p>\n
15%<\/p>\n
3003.20
\nMedicaments (other than patent or
\nproprietary) other than those which
\nare exclusively used in Ayurvedic,
\nUnani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or
\nBio-Chemic systems<\/p>\n
Nil<\/p>\n
3003.30
\nMedicaments, including those
\nused in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha,
\nHomoeopathic or Bio-Chemic
\nsystems<\/p>\n
Nil<\/p>\n
The effective rate of excise duty under Tariff sub – heading 3003.30 read with
\nNotification 32\/89 – C.E., dated 1.3.1989, is NIL.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the
\ndefinition of Ayurvedic  medicine in Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act cannot
\nbe applied for the purposes of the classification of a product for Central Excise duty
\nunder the  Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 and the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and
\nthat when there is no definition of any word  in the relevant statute, the word must be
\nconstrued in its popular sense i. e. how the common man who uses it, understands it.
\nArguing further the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not
\nonly ignored both the tests but has on the contrary based its order on the definition of
\nAyurvedic Medicine in Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.  It is submitted the
\nChapter Note.2 which indicates the meaning of  “medicament” and “patent” and
\n“proprietary medicament” and “drugs” does not refer to Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
\nand that there is every reason to believe that the Legislature has intentionally adopted a
\ndifferent definition for medicament, drug and patent and proprietary medicament etc.  It
\nis further submitted that when the phrase `pharmaceutical product’ is peculiar to Central
\nExcise Schedule and does not mean medication in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and
\neven the word `drugs’ used  in Note 2(ii) has been used in the Central Excise Schedule
\nonly to show that it falls within the ambit of medicament and that too in a sense different
\nfrom the one used in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act where  it has a specific connotation
\nfor the purpose of that Act as it excludes Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs and
\nincludes not only medicines but other substances and devices; this is, however, not the
\ncase  in the Central Excise Tariff.  According to the appellants, the Tribunal failed to
\nappreciate that the appellant’s products which contained the Ayurvedic ingredients as
\naforesaid were prepared in accordance with the Ayurvedic principles.  It is further urged
\nthat the formulations have been developed after referring to several authoritative
\nAyurvedic books and careful evaluation of actions, clinical trials  etc., and that the
\nformulations have been approved by the Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy,
\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh.  It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to
\nappreciate that the onus of classification of a product is on the Excise Department and
\nthat the Excise Authorities are required to produce the evidence to support their stand.
\nIn the present case, no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the Excise
\nDepartment and they have not even rebutted the evidence produced by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellants contended that as the classification of the
\ngoods in question  has been determined by the competent authority under the Drugs
\nAct  who on application for licence to manufacture Ayurvedic drugs in the prescribed
\nstatutory form has issued a licence for manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic drugs, the
\nCentral Excise Authorities have to act on that basis and it is not open to the Central
\nExcise Authorities to go beyond the same or sit in judgment thereon.  According to
\nMr.Lakshmikumaran the expression “Ayurvedic drug” is not defined in the Act and the
\nrules made thereunder, assistance of the Drugs Act can be taken to understand the
\nscope of sub-heading 3003.30 of CET.   It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to
\nappreciate that sub-heading 3003.10 excludes patent or proprietary medicaments other
\nthan those medicaments which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathic
\nor Bio-Chemic from the class of patent or proprietary medicaments covered thereunder.
\nAccording to the appellant  that merely because the word “Exclusively” appeared in
\nsub-heading 3003.10, it does not mean that the same would take colour and have the
\nsame meaning as the word “Exclusively” appearing in definition of “Ayurvedic drug” in
\nSection 3(a) of the Drugs Act.  In this context, it is submitted that the Tribunal has failed
\nto appreciate that the word “Exclusively”  appearing in sub-heading 3003.10 is used to
\ncover  Patent or  Proprietary Allopathic Medicaments as distinct from Patent or
\nProprietary Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha medicaments.  On the other hand, the word
\n“Exclusively” appearing in Section 3(a) of the Drugs Act was to distinguish the
\nAyurvedic medicaments from Patent or Proprietary Ayurvedic medicaments defined in
\nSection 3(h) of the Drugs Act and not to distinguish between the Allopathic medicines
\non one hand and Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha medicaments on the other hand.
\nTherefore, it is submitted that the world “Exclusively” appeared in different context and
\nfor different purposes and under sub-heading 3003.10 and Section 3(a) of the Drugs
\nAct and, therefore,  the meaning of the word “Exclusively” appearing in 3(a) of the said
\nAct cannot be borrowed or applied for the purpose of determining the scope and ambit
\nof sub-heading 3003.10 as opined by the learned Member(Technical).   It is also
\nsubmitted  that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the word “Exclusive” means
\nexclusiveness qua the individual assessee and that this exclusivity is licensed by the
\nDrug Controller and that as the said goods are marketed as Ayurvedic medicament in
\nIndia, the same are “Exclusively Ayurvedic” qua that manufacturer.  It is further argued
\nthat on a true and correct construction, sub-heading 3003.10 excludes Patent or
\nProprietary medicaments which are manufactured, sold and marketed as Ayurvedic
\nmedicaments in accordance with the license issued under the Drugs Act i.e. Patent or
\nProprietary Ayurvedic medicaments falling under Section 3(h) of the Drugs Act and,
\ntherefore, Section 3(a) has no application at all in construction of sub-heading 3003.10
\nof CET.   It is submitted that since the sub-heading 3003.10 excludes Patent or
\nProprietary Ayurvedic medicament as defined in Section 3(h) of the Drugs Act, the word
\n“Exclusively” does not and cannot have the same meaning as appearing in Section 3(a)
\nof the Drugs Act which defines Ayurvedic Drugs and not  Patent or Proprietary
\nAyurvedic drug and that as the goods are Patent or Proprietary Ayurvedic medicaments
\nwithin the definition given in Section 3(h) of the Drugs Act, Section 3(a) of the Drugs Act
\ndoes not apply at all in the present case.  It is also submitted that the Tribunal
\n(Member(J)) has erred  in holding that the formulae and patent of the appellant
\ncompany is registered in America which is without any evidence or material on record
\nand that the Tribunal has proceeded on an erroneous footing by recording the alleged
\nadmission regarding the method of manufacture and\/or marketing of the said goods as
\nAllopathic medicine in America and thereby misdirected itself in law and on facts and
\nthat the formula of goods bearing the name “Vicks’  as manufactured in America is
\ndifferent and, therefore, the same cannot be compared to the said goods as was
\napparent from the reference to Martindale.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr.Raju Ramachandran, learned Additional Solicitor General in reply to the
\narguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal  has
\nrightly held that the cough drops and throat drops cannot be classified as “Exclusively”
\nAyurvedic medicaments as its product is not manufactured in accordance with the
\nformulae prescribed in Ayurvedic texts and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that
\nthough the ingredients may be Ayurvedic, the formulation is not Ayurvedic and,
\ntherefore, cannot be classified  under sub-heading 3003.10.  According to Mr.Raju
\nRamachandran, a bare perusal of the three sub-headings, namely, 3003.10, 3003.20
\nand 3003.30 would indicate that the first sub-heading covers all patent or proprietary
\nmedicaments, the second sub-heading covers other medicaments which are not patent
\nor proprietary and the third sub-heading covers medicaments used in Ayurvedic, Unani,
\netc. systems and, therefore, it is important to note that sub-heading 3003.30 uses the
\nword “used in” …..”systems”.  It is submitted that a system of medicine pre-supposes a
\nsystematic practice of medicine where there is a patient and practitioner.   For a
\nmedicament to qualify to fall under this sub-heading it is necessary to establish that a
\npractitioner of Ayurvedic medicine prescribes the medicine in question in the normal
\ncourse of his treatment and in both the present appeals, the Tribunal has not found that
\nthis has been established and, therefore, this Court would not interfere with question of
\nfacts.\n<\/p>\n
In regard to the word “Exclusive” which is used both in sub-headings 3003.10 and
\n3003.20 Mr. Raju Ramachandran would submit as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The word “exclusive” is used both in sub headings 3003.10 and 3003.20.  If
\nwhat falls under 3003.30 is a “classical” Ayurvedic medicine (because that is
\nwhat will be prescribed by an Ayurvedic practitioner practising the Ayurvedic
\nsystem of medicine) then the expression “exclusively Ayurvedic” must  again
\nbe the same classical Ayurvedic product which means it must fulfill both the
\ningredients of Section 3 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, namely that its
\ningredients must all be those specified in the authoritative text books, and the
\nformulae of its manufacture must be strictly in accordance with the formulae
\nprescribed in those text books.  Admittedly, the said formulae are not
\nfollowed in both the cases and, therefore, the products in question cannot fall
\nunder sub heading 3003.30.”\n<\/p>\n
\tReplying to the argument of the counsel for the appellant that since classical
\nAyurvedic products can never be patent or proprietary medicines, the exclusion clause
\nin sub-heading 3003.10 would be meaningless unless it comprehends neo-Ayurvedic
\nproducts such as theirs.   Mr.Raju Ramachandran contends that this exclusion is by
\nway of abundant caution only to indicate that classical Ayurvedic products falling under
\nsub-heading 3003.30 would not fall under sub-heading 3003.10, and it is well known
\nthat often expressions are used by way of abundant caution or clarification which does
\nnot mean that they are surplusage.  In any event, even if the Court were  to come to the
\nconclusion that these words are surplusage, there need not be any inhibition in this
\nregard.  It is further submitted that these words occur not in a substantive section of the
\nstatute but in a sub-heading of a classification, which is part of a statute and if it is
\naccepted that it is  only classical Ayurvedic medicaments which would fall under sub-
\nheading 3003.30, the interpretation placed by the Revenue on 3003.10 must also be
\ncorrect.  It is submitted that the onus of proving  that the goods fall within the exception
\nwould surely be on those who claim that exception  and in the instant case this onus
\nhas not  been discharged inasmuch as it has not been found  that these are medicines
\nused exclusively in the Ayurvedic system of medicine.  Referring to the judgment of this
\nCourt in the  Himtaj Ayurvedic Hair Oil  reported in 2003 (154) ELT 324 (SC), it is
\nsubmitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the said cases were decided as a
\nculmination of show cause notices issued by the Revenue seeking to classify the
\nproduct in question as a perfumed hair oil and not as a medicament.  There was,
\ntherefore,  no occasion for the Revenue to ever argue  on their appropriate
\nclassification within Chapter heading 3003, namely, 3003.10 or 3003.30.  It is,
\ntherefore, submitted that the observation both of the Tribunal and of this Court in the
\nHimtaj Hair Oil  cases have to be understood as obiter dicta, do not preclude this Court
\nfrom arriving at an independent conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\tReferring to the case of Vicks Vapourub which confirms the judgement of the
\nTribunal it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it does not again
\nmilitate against the contention of the Revenue.  In that case, the matter was remanded
\nto see whether in common parlance the product in question was an Ayurvedic medicine
\nand as already stated the common parlance test is accepted by the Revenue itself, but
\nwhat is required to be seen is whether the said test is satisfied in the present case and
\nthe answer to that question must be in the negative.\n<\/p>\n
\tReferring to the judgment of this Court in Amrutanjan case, Mr.Raju
\nRamachandran submitted that the said decision does not preclude the contention of the
\nRevenue and all that the decision holds is that the fact that certain ingredients were of a
\nsynthetic nature would not mean that the products became non-Ayurvedic and that the
\nsaid decision do not deal with the interpretation of sub-heading 3003.30 vis-`-vis
\n3003.10 .\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have given our anxious consideration to the points urged by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the
\npleadings, provisions of  law and  the decisions of the Tribunal and of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that the products in question are Vicks Medicated cough drops
\nand Vicks Vaporub throat drops.  The appellants manufacture these products under
\nAyurvedic Drug Licence.   All the ingredients contained in these products are admittedly
\nmentioned in authoritative Ayurvedic Text Books mentioned in Schedule III to the Drugs
\nand Cosmetics Act.  However, the formula of preparing the products is proprietary to
\nthe appellant in C.A.No.2072\/1996.  The appellant submitted  that the ingredients
\ncontained in the products are manufactured from natural herbs like menthol etc., but
\npurified  to the pharmaceutical grade.  The appellant claims the classification of the
\nproducts in question as patented\/proprietary Ayurvedic  medicaments under heading
\n3003.30 while the Central Excise Department seeks to classify the said products under
\nheading 3003.10.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have perused the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the
\nCommissioner (Appeals) who decide the appeals against the assessee in
\nC.A.No.2072\/1996 on two grounds, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) The products are not manufactured according to the formula in any
\nauthoritative text books on Ayurved; and<\/p>\n
(ii) The judgment of the CEGAT in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd.
\nMadras Vs. CCE Madras reported in 1991 (32) ECR 538 is
\napplicable to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have perused the order in Amrutanjan case passed by the CEGAT wherein
\nthe Tribunal held that the products were having pharmaceutical name but the assessee
\nwas using Hindi name only to claim classification as Ayurvedic Medicine.  This order of
\nthe Tribunal was overruled by this Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. vs. CCE
\nreported in 1995 (77) ELT 500 (SC).   Unfortunately, the Assistant Commissioner and
\nthe Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the overruled judgement of the CEGAT, because
\nthe judgment of this Court was not available at the time they decided the matter.  The
\nTribunal distinguished the same. It was held by this Court in Amrutanjan’s case that
\nthe ingredients, which are used in preparation of ayurvedic medicines even if they are
\nused after refinement or bringing them to pharmaceutical quality, they do not become
\nsynthetic in nature.  It is immaterial that the same articles bearing a different
\nnomenclature are also known and used in allopathic system.  Though the question
\nwhether the formula for preparation should be in accordance with authoritative
\nayurvedic texts was not dealt with by Their Lordships, the appellant’s claim gets
\nconsiderable support from this decision.  By the same token of reasoning, the drugs in
\nquestion can also be treated as ayurvedic medicaments as there is no dispute that all
\nthe ingredients find place in the books on Ayurvedic medicine.\n<\/p>\n
Extensive arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on either side on
\nthe heading 30.03 and sub-headings 3003.10, 3003.20 and 3003.30 we have
\nreproduced the arguments advanced by them in the paragraphs (supra).\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the order passed by
\nthe Tribunal in the case of Richardson Hindustan Ltd. Vs. CCE  reported at 1998 (35)
\nELT 424.  The Tribunal in that case held that there is no definition of Ayurvedic
\nmedicaments in the  Central Excise and Salt Act or in the Central Excise Tariff Act.
\nAlthough Ayurvedic medicines have been defined in Section 3 (a) of the Drugs and
\nCosmetics Act, the same cannot be applied for the purpose of  classification of a
\nproduct for Central Excise duty in view of the judicial pronouncements on the subject.
\nThe Tribunal held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“It is now a settled principle of law that when there is no definition of any
\nword in the relevant statute, the word must be construed in its popular
\nsense i.e. the meaning as understood by the people conversant therewith.
\nThe appellants have produced opinions from physicians, certificates from
\nconsumers and certificates from retail sellers to show that, in the common
\nparlance, Vicks Vaporub and Vicks Inhaler are treated as Ayurvedic
\nmedicines.  The registration certificate issued by the D.G.T.D. and the
\nmanufacturing licence issued by the licensing authority also show the
\nappellants’ product as Ayurvedic medicines.  The categorisation made by
\nthese authorities have persuasive value.  Further, the ingredients ov Vicks
\nVaporub are Pudine ke phool, Karpur, Banafshah and Sarala Drava.  The
\ningredients and other quantum are mentiioned on the product’s labels.  In
\nthe case of Vicks Inhaler, the appellants have also filed photocopies of
\ncertain slokas from the books of Ayurvedic medicines describing the nasal
\ninhaler device.  The products will, therefore, merit classification under Tariff
\nHeading “3003.30 – Medicaments including those used in the Ayurvedic
\nsystem of medicines” if all the ingredients of the products find mention in
\nauthoritative book(s) on Ayurvedic medicines.  The matter is , accordingly,
\nremanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo examination from this
\naspect.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis decision has been affirmed by this Court while dismissing the appeal filed
\nby the Revenue.  The order reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Having  regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and in view
\nof the findings made by the Tribunal and the points upon which it has
\nremanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, we are of the opinion that
\nthe Tribunal has proceeded in the facts of this case on a correct basis and
\nthe order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.  The appeal fails
\nand is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are told that after remand, the adjudicating authority classified Vicks
\nVaporub and Inhaler under sub-heading 3003.30.\n<\/p>\n
At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to circular No.25\/91 dated
\n3.10.1991 issued by the Department after the decision in Richardson Hindustan’s case
\n(supra) laying down the twin tests, namely (i)  that the product should be known as
\nAyurvedic medicament in the common parlance and (ii) the ingredients should be
\nmentioned in Ayurvedic text books.  It is beneficial to reproduce the circular for better
\nunderstanding of the case.  The circular reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“Circular: 25\/91 dated 03-Oct-1991
\nAyurvedic medicine  Classification of [Chapter 30]
\nCircularNo.25\/91, dated 3-10-1991
\nGovernment of India
\nCentral Board of Excise & Customs
\nNew Delhi<\/p>\n
Subject: \tCentral Excise – Chapter 30 – Classification of the products
\nclaimed as Ayurvedic medicine under the C.E.T.A.,  1985 –\n<\/p>\n
Classification regarding<\/p>\n
\tRepresentation have been received from manufacturers of Ayurvedic
\npreparations that they have been facing problems in different Central Excise
\nCollectorates in the matter of identification\/classification of such products.   The doubts
\nrelate to the question as to whether the products claimed to be Ayurvedic medicine, are
\nin fact so, and whether those would merit classification under Sub-heading No.3003.30
\nof the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.   According to the guidelines already in vogue, each medicament used in the
\nvarious systems of treatments eg. Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha, has to be examined on
\nmerits and, in specific cases of doubts, the Collectors are required to make a reference
\nto the Board, who take up the matter with the Drugs Controller of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.   The Government have further examined the matter in the light of parameters
\nprescribed by the Tribunal in their Order No.116\/88-C dated 10-2-1988 in the case of
\nM\/s Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad.  The Tribunal held that a
\npreparation would merit classification as an Ayurvedic medicine, if in the common
\nparlance, it is known  as an  Ayurvedic medicine and all its ingredients are mentioned in
\nthe authoritative book(s) on Ayurvedic medicines.  It has also been observed that the
\naforesaid two tests been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil
\nAppeal No.2127 of 1988-C.C.E., Hyderabad v. M\/s Richardson Hindustan Ltd. –
\nSupreme Court’s Order dated 10-1-1989.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.   The Government have accepted the above referred two tests for determining
\nthe classification  of the products claimed to be as Ayurvedic medicine (excluding
\nherbal or ayurvedic cosmetic) and these may accordingly, be kept in view while
\ndeciding similar cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.   The classification may be brought to the notice of the lower field formations
\nand the trade interests may also be suitably advised.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.   All pending assessments of the type indicated above, may be finalised on
\nthe above details.”\n<\/p>\n
It is seen from the above circular that the Government have accepted two tests
\nfor determining the classification of the products claimed to be the Ayurvedic medicines
\nand the statutory authorities were directed to keep this in view while deciding similar
\npending assessments of the type indicated in the circular and be finalised on the above
\nbasis.  It is also seen from the circular that the aforesaid two tests have been upheld by
\nthis Court in the case of C.A.No.2127 of 1998 – C.C.E., Hyderabad vs. M\/s Richardson
\nLtd. Order dated 10.01.1999.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, it is seen that the CEGAT’s decision and the circular of the Board does not
\nlay down any tests regarding the formulae of manufacture as per authoritative Ayurved
\ntext books.\n<\/p>\n
However, Mr.Raju Ramachandran argued that the circulars of the Department
\non which the appellants place reliance  do not advance their case and that the circulars
\nonly indicate that the Government has accepted the two tests for determining a
\nmedicine as Ayurvedic medicine and that the acceptance of these tests do not absolve
\nthe assessee from the onus of proving the exclusive character of drug as Ayurvedic
\nmedicament and that the said onus the appellants have failed to discharge, we are
\nunable to countenance the said submission.  As already noticed, the Government have
\nissued a circular on the basis of the representations received from the manufacturers of
\nAyurvedic preparations  and the doubts in regard to the question whether the products
\nclaimed to be Ayurvedic medicines are, in fact, so and whether they would merit
\nclassification under sub-heading 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff
\nAct, 1985.  The Government of India after examining the matter in the light of the
\nparameters prescribed by the Tribunal in their Order passed in M\/s Richardson
\nHindustan Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Hyderabad which has been upheld by this Court  in
\nC.A.No.2127 of 1998 have issued the circular clarifying the correct position in regard to
\nthe classification and reiterating the said two tests.  This argument of Mr. Raju
\nRamachandran, therefore, has no force and is liable to be rejected.
\nStrong reliance was also placed by the appellant’s counsel on the decision of the
\nlarger Bench of the CEGAT  in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Kendra vs. CCE
\nreported in 2002 (139) ELT 610.  In that case the Revenue contended that Himtaj Oil
\nwill be classified under Heading 33.05 as Perfumed Hair Oil. The larger Bench of the
\nTribunal held that it is a medicament falling under Chapter 30 and it is a patented
\nAyurvedic medicament falling under sub-heading 3003.30.  The Larger Bench after
\nconsidering  number of orders passed by the CEGAT including the order passed  in
\nNaturalle Health Product  (Impugned order in the present appeal reported in 125 ELT\n<\/p>\n
765) came to the conclusion that  sub-heading 3003.30 took in both classical as well as
\npatent or proprietary Ayurvedic medicaments.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“We are not able to agree with the view taken in 2000 (125) ELT 765
\nthat sub-heading 3003.10 would take in patent or proprietary ayurvedic
\nmedicaments.  According to us, subheading 3003.30 took in both classical
\nas well as patent or proprietary ayurvedic medicaments. ”\n<\/p>\n
The larger Bench of the Tribunal have thus interpreted the world “Exclusively
\nAyurvedic” occurring in sub-heading 3003.30 to say that it means those ayurvedic
\nmedicaments whose ingredients are mentioned in authoritative text books on Ayurveda
\nmentioned in Annexure to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.  This decision has been
\naffirmed by this Court in CCE Allahabad vs. Himtaj Udyog<\/a> kendra reported in 2003
\n(154) ELT 323 (SC).    In this case the question was whether Himtaj Oil was classifiable
\nunder sub-heading 3003.30, that is, Ayurvedic medicament or 3003.10, that is,
\nPerfumed Hair Oil. The GEGAT has held that Himtaj Oil is classifiable as an Ayurvedic
\nmedicament.  In doing so, it has followed the decision of the larger Bench of CEGAT
\nreported in 2002 (139) ELT 610.  This Court in the judgment in C.A.No.1512 of 2001
\nreported in 2003 (154) ELT 324  Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs.
\nPandit D.P.Sharma<\/a> held that Himtaj Oil is classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicament
\nand thus approved the larger Bench decision of CEGAT.\n<\/p>\n
In D.P. Sharma’s case, the Assistant Collector accepted the respondents’ case
\nthat the Oil fall under sub-heading 3003.30 but so holding the Assistant Collector, inter
\nalia, relied on the following material:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)    Drug licence issued by the Drug Controller.\n<\/p>\n
(b)   A letter issued by the Superintendent of Ayurvedic Department,
\nbenaras which stated that the product was an Ayurvedic medicine.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  A study report of the institute of Postgraduate Education and
\nResearch in Ayurved, Calcutta on “Himtaj oil” which classified this
\noil as an Ayurvedic product which relieved pain in headaches and
\nmigraine and also provided relief against dandruff.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  A report prepared by the Range Officer, based on market inquiries
\nconducted by him with dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers,
\nchemists and druggist, which showed that all treated “Himtaj oil” as
\nan Ayurvedic Medicament.\n<\/p>\n
(e)   A re-testing Report of the Chief Chemist, New Delhi which stated
\nthat no Ayurvedic perfumery could be detected in “Himtaj oil”.\n<\/p>\n
(f)    SSI Registration Certificate obtained for manufacturing Ayurvedic oil <\/p>\n
\tThe Revenue filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the
\nappeal of the Revenue and held  that there was no evidence to prove that the product
\nwas being ordinarily prescribed by medical practitioners or that it was used to deal with
\nspecific disease.  The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was nothing to show that
\ncommon man used the product as medicine.  A further appeal was filed by the
\nassessee before the CEGAT which allowed the appeal. Considering the report of the
\nRange Officer, this Court held that the dealers, wholesalers, retailers, customers,
\nchemists and druggists all considered “Himtaj oil” to be an Ayurvedic medicament and
\napart from that,  the other material relied upon by the Assistant Collector also clearly
\nshows that “Himtaj oil” is an Ayurvedic medicament.  In this view of the matter, this
\nCourt dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe same ratio has been laid down in the other judgment of this Court in the
\ncase of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. Sharma Chemical Works<\/a> reported
\niin 2003 (154) ELT 328 (SC).   In that case, this Court held that the mere fact that a
\nproduct is sold across the counters and not under a Doctor’s prescription, does not by
\nitself lead to the conclusion that it is not a medicament and that merely because the
\npercentage of medicament in a product is less, does not also ipso facto  mean that the
\nproduct is not a medicament.   This Court further held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is settled law that the onus or burden to show that a product fall within a
\nparticular Tariff Item is always on the revenue.  Mere fact that a product is sold
\nacross the counters and not under a Doctors prescription, does not by itself lead
\nto the conclusion that it is not a medicament.  We are also in agreement with
\nthe submission of Mr.Lakshmikumaran that merely because the percentage of
\nmedicament in a product is less, does not  also ipso fact mean that the product
\nis not a medicament.  Generally the percentage or dosage of the medicament
\nwill be such as can be absorbed by the human body.  The medicament would
\nnecessarily be covered by fillers\/vehicles in order to make the product usable.
\nIt cold not be denied that all the ingredients used in Banphool Oil are those
\nwhich are set out in the Ayurveda text books.  Of course the formula may not be
\nas per the text books but a medicament can also be under a patented or
\nproprietary formula.  The main criteria  for determining classification  is normally
\nthe use it is put by the customers who use it.  The burden of proving that
\nBhanphool Oil is understood by the customers as an hair oil was on the
\nrevenue.  This burden is not discharged as no such proof is adduced.  On the
\ncontrary we find that the oil can be used for treatment of headache, eye
\nproblem,  night blindness, reeling, head weak memory, hysteria, ammenesia,
\nblood pressure, insomnia etc.  The dosage required are also set out on the
\nlabel.   The product is registered with Drug Controller and is being
\nmanufactured under a drug licence.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the above, it is clear that a patent Ayurvedic medicament could be one
\nwhere all the ingredients find mention in the authoritative text books on Ayurveda,
\nthough the formula for prepaation of the medicament is not in accordance with the
\nformula given in those text books.  It is not in dispute that  all the ingredients are
\nmentioned in the authoritative text books on Ayurveda.  In fact, in the case of appellant
\nin Civil Appeal No. 2072\/1996, the products satisfy the definition in Section 2(h) of
\nDrugs & Cosmetics Act as “patent or proprietary” Ayurvedic medicines also.  Further,
\nthe manufcture of this medicament is being done under the Ayurvedic drug licence
\nissued by competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Vice-President and one of the Members of the Tribunal observed that the
\nproducts in question are mentioned in Martindale’s “The Extra Pharmacopoeia”
\npublished in U.K. and it is also a patented medicine in USA and and marketed there as
\nAllopathic medicine.  These facts were not alleged in the show-cause notice.  In the
\nabsence of any material on record as to how the products are treated and understood in
\nU.K., U.S.A. etc. the observations of the learned Members of the Tribunal are not
\nwarranted.  Even if it is a patented medicine in U.S.A., it does not cease to be an
\nexclusively Ayurvedic medicine if it has the characteristics of such medicine.  It is also
\nrelevant to note that after remand by the Tribunal in Richardson Hindustan case (which
\nwas confirmed by this Court), we are told that  ‘Vicks Vaporub’ and Inhaler have been
\nheld to be Ayurvedic medicines coming under classification No.3003.30.  If those two
\nproducts having the same brand name ‘Vicks’ are treated as Ayurvedic medicines
\nfalling under classification No. 3003.30 after applying the tests laid down by the
\nTribunal, there is no reason why the same classification should not apply to the
\nproducts in the present case.  As submitted by the appellant, the ingredients used in
\nthese products have sources as natural herbs and extracts taken from such herbs and
\nhave been purified to the pharmaceutical grade before using the same.  We would also
\nlike to point out that the comment of one of the learned Members that, admittedly, the
\nassessee is not using genuine and pure Ayurvedic ingredients is wholly incorrect.
\nThere is no such admission anywhere.  The assessee has been throughout contending
\nthat the ingredients used are mentioned in authoritative Ayurvedic text books and they
\nare natural products from herbs and plants which were only refined.\n<\/p>\n
In terms of the order passed by the CEGAT in the case of Richardson Hindustan
\nLtd. vs. Collector of Central Excise<\/a> (1988 (35) 424 (Tribunal) which has been affirmed
\nby this Court and similar view taken in other cases referred to supra, the following clear
\npropositions and findings emerge:-\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\tThat the words ‘Ayurvedic Medicine’ not having been defined in the
\nCentral Excise and Salt Act, 1944 or the Central Excise Tariff Act,
\n1985, the common parlance test  would have to be resorted to find
\nout whether a medicine is treated as an Ayurvedic medicine by the
\npublic;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThat it is necessary that the ingredients of Ayurvedic Medicine
\nshould be mentioned in authoritative books on Ayurvedic
\nMedicines.”\n<\/p>\n
                          We are also of the opinion that when there is no definition of any kind in the
\nrelevant taxing statute, the articles enumerated in the tariff schedules must be
\nconstrued as far as possible in their ordinary or popular sense, that is, how the common
\nman and persons dealing with it understand it.  If the customers and the practitioners in
\nAyurvedic medicine, the dealers and the licensing officials treat the products in question
\nas Ayurvedic medicines and not as Allopathic medicines, that fact gives an indication
\nthat they are exclusively ayurvedic medicines or that they are used in Ayurvedic system
\nof medicine, though it is a patented medicine.  This is especially so when all the
\ningredients used are mentioned in the authoritative books on Ayurveda.  As rightly
\ncontended by the counsel for the appellants, the essential character of the medicine
\nand the primary function of the medicine is derived from the active ingredients
\ncontained therein and it has certainly a bearing on the determination of classification
\nunder the Central Excise Act.  As held in Amruthanjan case, the mere fact that the
\ningredients are purified or added with some preservatives does not really alter their
\ncharacter.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn C.A.No. 2072 of 1996, the affidavits of Ayurvedic practitioners were filed
\nbefore the adjudicating authority to establish that these products are recognised and
\nbeing used in Ayurvedic system of medicine.  The Assistant Collector ignored them with
\na cryptic observation that they are ‘self-serving’.  No other authorities including the
\nTribunal have considered such material.  No evidence to the contra has been relied
\nupon by the Department.  When we come to the appeal of Akin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,
\nthe assessee filed affidavits from doctors, users and stockists and also furnished
\nclinical trial report from Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Hyderabad.  The label of the
\nproduct showing it as Ayurvedic medicine was also relied on.  The Collector(Appeals)
\ngave a finding that both the tests i.e., common parlance and ingredient tests are
\nsatisfied.  The affidavit evidence was not rebutted by the Department by producing any
\ncontra evidence.  As against the clear finding of the appellate Collector, the Tribunal
\nmerely commented that a few   certificates given by a doctor or owner of a medical
\nshop does not advance the case of the assessee.  The Tribunal allowed the Revenue’s
\nappeal following the decision in Naturalle Health Products Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant in
\nC.A.No. 2072 of 1996)<\/p>\n
\tIn our view, the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in law and on facts  by
\nbeing influenced by the unimportant factors like the mention of similar names of goods
\nin Martindale and patent of the same in USA and failed to take into account the relevant
\nfactors like the issue of licence to manufacture Ayurvedic drugs under the  Drugs Act,
\nthe popular understanding of the products, the law laid down by this Court in the cases
\nreferred to above and the circular issued by the Government of India    in the light of
\nRichardson Hindustan case.  The Tribunal placed undue reliance on the definition of
\nAyurvedic medicament in Section 2(a) of the Drugs Act.    In our opinion, all the
\nproducts ought to be classified as Ayurvedic medicaments under sub-heading 3003.30
\nof the Central Excise Tariff.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation to allow both the appeals and
\nset aside the orders impugned in these appeals passed by the CEGAT, New Delhi, in
\napeal No. E\/1062\/93-C and the Appeal No. E\/53\/95-C.\n<\/p>\n
While admitting the appeal, this Court stayed the impugned order on condition
\nthat the bank guarantee given pending the disposal of the appeal before the CEGAT
\nbe kept  alive.  Now that the appeals by the appellants are allowed, the appellants  are
\nat liberty to get the bank guarantee discharged with immediate effect.   In the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, we say no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2072 of 1996 Appeal (civil) 10744 of 1996 PETITIONER: M\/s. Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd. RESPONDENT: Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Naturalle Health Products ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 11 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 11 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-03T15:41:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-03T15:41:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":7433,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Naturalle Health Products ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 11 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-03T15:41:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 11 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 11 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-03T15:41:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-03T15:41:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003"},"wordCount":7433,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003","name":"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 11 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-03T15:41:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-naturalle-health-products-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-11-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Naturalle Health Products … vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 11 November, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82647\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}