The central legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of a notification exempting medicaments from duty is not available if the product is sold under a name not specified in the relevant books or pharmacopoeias.

ORDER

1. These two appeals are against the orders of the Customs, Excise and c Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "CEGAT") dated 14-3-2000 and 9-10-2001. The point involved in both these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 75 of 1994 dated 29-3-1994. This notification exempts from payment of duty medicaments used in, amongst others, Ayurvedic preparation manufactured in accordance with the formula prescribed in Ayurvedic books specified in the First Schedule to the d Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or homoeopathic pharmacopoeias and sold under the name specified in such books or pharmacopoeia. The Tribunal has held, in both the orders, that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of this notification.

2. The admitted facts are that the appellants are manufacturing Maha Bhringaraj Oil which is an Ayurvedic preparation. It is not disputed that this manufacture is in accordance with the formula prescribed in the authoritative books. The appellants have, however, been denied the benefit of notification on the ground that they are selling the product as "Maha Bhringol" which is not the name specified for this product in the books or pharmacopoeia.

3. It is submitted that the notification does not prevent a party from using any other mark or symbol or monogram or invented words. It is submitted f that mere use of additional words would not deprive a party of the benefit of the notification. It is submitted that the word "Maha Bhringol" is not a trade or brand name and that the appellants do not have any proprietary right to these words. It is pointed out that the appellants have filed an affidavit to this effect. Reliance is also placed upon a trade notice wherein it has been clarified as to which product is covered by the notification. The trade notice states by way of example:

"The following four situations will make it more clear:

(a) Chavanprash is prepared as per Ayurvedic textbooks and sold also as Chavanprash without any indication as to who the manufacturer is.

(b) Chavanprash is prepared as per Ayurvedic textbooks. It is sold as Chavanprash but the manufacturers name or mark, logo, symbol, etc. is also prominently displayed.

(c) Chavanprash is prepared as per the Ayurvedic textbooks. It is, however, sold under a brand name but not sold as Chavanprash. For example, it is sold, say as Kesri Jivan.

(d) Chavanprash is not prepared as per the Ayurvedic textbooks but using some other formulas."

4. It is submitted that the case of the appellants falls squarely under clause (b) above. It is submitted that they are selling "Maha Bhringaraj Oil". It is submitted that they are merely adding the words "Maha Bhringol". It is submitted that this is permissible as per the clarification issued in the trade notice.

5. We have seen the wrappers of the product. We have also seen the classification list filed by the appellants. Both the wrappers and the classification list show that the product is being sold as "Maha Bhringol". The words "Maha Bhringol" are in very bold letters. Thereafter in a smaller type the words Maha Bhringaraj Oil are also used. However, what has to be seen is how the product is sold. The classification list shows that the product is being sold in the name of "Maha Bhringol". Admittedly, this is not the name of the product in the Ayurvedic book or in pharmacopoeias. In our view, it is irrelevant whether the words "Maha Bhringol" are a brand or trade name or not. So long as the product is sold under the name "MahaBhringol", the benefit of the notification would not be available as it is not the name given in the books or pharmacopoeias.

6. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the judgments of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.