1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector confirming a duty demand of Rs. 43,602.25 on 23 products which he held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 30.03 and liable to pay duty @ 10% vide Sr. No. 4 of Notification 8/94, denying the benefit of nil rate of duty claimed by the respondents herein. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Astra Pharmaceutical P. Ltd. to hold that the symbol found on the label (along with the name of 'Zandu') is only to identify the manufacturer and not the product and is therefore in the nature of a house mark and that will not render the ayurvedic medicine in question as a patent or proprietary medicament.
2. We have heard the learned SDR and perused the records; none appeals for the respondents in spite of notice.
3. The adjudicating authority has examined the labels of the products and found that the respondent has mentioned the word 'Zandu' in Hindi on the labels and also printed symbols on such labels. The symbol is the name of the medicine. Example of one such label is that where the name 'Zandu' appears, the name of the medicine 'Medaphale Rasayanam' is also found. The contention of the manufacturers before the adjudicating authority was that all the medicaments in dispute are mentioned by name in the ayurvedic books and they are not printing any brand name or trade mark or symbol etc. The submission that all the medicaments are mentioned by name in ayurvedic texts has not been rebutted. Further, there is no ground raised in the appeal before us that the name of the medicine found on the label is one which is not mentioned in any authoritative ayurvedic text. In this context, the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, as seen from order No.A/737-739/WZB/2004/C-II, dated 11-8-2004 , wherein it has been held that as long as ayurvedic medicines are sold under the name specified in the authoritative text books, it does not matter whether any mark, logo, monograph, symbols of the manufacturer is also put on the labels, is directly applicable. The Tribunal has relied upon the Board's circular dated 29-3-1994 in coming to this conclusion.
4. The ratio of the above decision is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. Hence following the same, we decline to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and uphold the same and reject the appeal.