JUDGMENT : [Per: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.] These four revisions, are filed by Commissioner Trade Tax I Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, under Section 55 read with Section 80 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and directed against the order dated 17-08-2007, passed by Chairman, Trade Tax Tribunal, in Second Appeal No. 74 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 75 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 76 of 2007 and Second Appeal No. 77 of 2007, which are allowed by said authority by a common judgment challenged in these revisions. 2. In all these four revisions, question of law involved is as under :1. Whether "Chlormint Candy", "Chlormint Gum", "Chlormint Ice", "Chlormint Ice Gum", "Chlormint with Harbasole", "Happydent': "Gum Draggy': "Chewable Gum Draggy" and "Chatar Patar': are wrongly held to be ayurvedic medicine by Trade Tax Tribunal? 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent I assessee M/s Perfeti Van (India) Pvt. Ltd., is registered under Uttaranchal Value Added Tax, Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as Uttaranchal VAT Act) for doing business of manufacturing and selling of ayurvedic medicines and confectionary items. The dispute relates to the assessment for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, for which assessee submitted its monthly returns in form 3 on 23-05-2006, 24-06-2006, 27-07-2006 and 23-08-2006 respectively. The sale for• said four months were shown in the return of the items manufactured and produced by the assessee amounting to Rs. 97,34,613.00, 90,75,226.00, Rs.89,47,046.00 and Rs. 78,28,978.00. Out of said amount for the aforesaid four months, sales made through C.S.D. canteens were exempted from trade tax to the tune of Rs. 16,935.00, Rs. 9,072.00, Rs. 14,818.00 and Rs. 6,451.00. Apart from this, sales of items - "Chloromint" "Happydent" and Chatar-Patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, were shown as Rs. 5,57,432.00, Rs. 5,17,019.00, Rs.3,66,212.00 and Rs. 5,98,765.00 but only 4% of tax was deposited on these sales and rest 8.5% tax was deposited 'under Protest'. 6,451.00. Apart from this, sales of items - "Chloromint" "Happydent" and Chatar-Patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee for the months of April 2006, May 2006, June 2006 and July 2006, were shown as Rs. 5,57,432.00, Rs. 5,17,019.00, Rs.3,66,212.00 and Rs. 5,98,765.00 but only 4% of tax was deposited on these sales and rest 8.5% tax was deposited 'under Protest'. The case of the revisionist is that "Chlormint Candy", "Chloromint Gum", "Chloromint Ice", Chloromint Ice Gum", "Happydent" and "Chatar Patar" are confectionary items and tax payable on said items is 12.5% and 4%, which is applicable to the ayurvedic medicines and as such, the tax is not payable on said items is at the rate of 4%, which is applicable to the ayurvedic medicines. The case of assessee I respondent is that the aforesaid items are ayurvedic medicines and as such, the tax is payable on said items at the rate of 4%. The Assising Officer, the First Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax, rejected the assessee's contention and held that the items manufactured and sold by the assessee are confectionary items and not ayurvedic medical preparations. Aggrieved by said judgment, the aforesaid four appeals were filed by the Assessee before the Trade Tax Tribunal, who accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the four appeals. Hence these revisions. 5. Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that "Chlormint Candy", "Chloromint Gum", "Chloromint Ice", Chloromint Ice Gum", "Chloromint with Herbasole", "Happydent" "Gum Draggy", "Chewing Gum Draggy" and "Chatar-Patar", manufactured and sold by the assessee, are not ayurvedic medicines but only confectionary preparations. He further argued that the items in the common parlance are not used as medicines but purchased by the customers for taste. On the other hand, Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Sr. Advocate, representing the assessee, contended that the aforesaid preparations are ayurvedic medicines, as the products in question have medicinal use and utility. 6. Before further discussion, we think it proper to mention the relevant provisions of law, applicable to the case. Section4 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which pertains to rate of tax on the various kinds of items provides four slabs on rate of tax. 6. Before further discussion, we think it proper to mention the relevant provisions of law, applicable to the case. Section4 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which pertains to rate of tax on the various kinds of items provides four slabs on rate of tax. In Clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of Uttaranchal VAT Act, 2005, provides that a dealer shall be liable to pay tax on his taxable turnover in respect of goods specified in Schedule II(B) at the rate of 4%. It further provides that in respect of goods other than those included in any of the Schedules, the rate of tax would be 12.5%. Schedule II (B) of the aforesaid Act, classifies 126 items (for which rate of tax is 4%). Item No. 41 of Schedule II (B), enumerates - "Drugs, medicines and pharmaceutical preparations (Alopathic, Ayurvedic, Homeopathic and Unani) including vaccines, syringes and dressings, medicated ointments produced under drug license and the light liquid paraffin of IP Grade." 7. The words "Drugs" and "Medicines" are not defined in Uttaranchal VAT Act, 2005. To interpret the words 'Drugs' and 'Medicines', learned counsel for both the parties, referred to definitions given in Section 3(a) and Section 3(h) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Clause (a) of Section 3 of said Act, reads as under :"(a) ''Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug" includes all medicines intended for internal or external use for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals, and manufactured exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in, the authoritative books of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Tibb systems of medicine, specified in the First Schedule. " 8. Clause (h) of Section 3 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, defines 'patent or proprietary medicine" as under: "(h) "patent and proprietary medicine" means(i) In relation to Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani Tibb systems of medicine all formulations containing only such ingredients mentioned in the formulae described in the authoritative books of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb systems of medicine specified in the First Schedule, but does not include a medicine which is administered by parental route and also a formulation included in the authoritative books as specified in clause (a). (ii) in relation to any other systems of medicine........." 9. (ii) in relation to any other systems of medicine........." 9. Authoritative books of Ayurvedic and Siddha systems, are mentioned in Schedule A of First Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Said list includes book titled "Bhav Prakash". Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned counsel for the respondent referred before us, items No. 70 and 73 of Schedule I of book titled "Bhavprakashnighantu", written by Ganga Sahaye Pandey and Krishnachandra Chunekar. The entries in the Schedule of said Book describe qualities of Peppermint and Pudeena (Spearmint). Our attention is also drawn to the fourth chapter of Book titled "Dravyaguna Vijnana" Volume II, written by Prof. P.V. Sharma, in which medicinal qualities of Eucalyptus, are mentioned. On the basis of properties mentioned of peppermint and pudeena, it is argued that the items manufactured by assessee have medicinal value and for the reason that the chloromint preparations included the aforesaid peppermint and spearmint, as its contents. Therefore, the same are ayurvedic medicines and not the confectionary. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, argued that Haldi (turmeric); Kalimirch (black pepper), etc. have also medicinal values and that does not make everything medicine. What makes an item medicine is formulae for the medicines in its proper dose for the treatment of a disease or disorder. 10. No doubt, merely for the reason that some plant or its leaves, stem. or fruit has medicinal value does not make everything ayurvedic medicine. But in the present case, literature of 'Chlormint with Herbasole' and 'Happydent' (white baking soda with mint flavour) show that the same are manufactured under ayurvedic medicine manufacturing license No. 157 ISM (HR). Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed in these revisions shows that the Deputy Director cum Licensing Authority of Directorate of Ayush Harvana, has renewed the license of the respondent- M/s Perfetti Van Melle (India) Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing ayurvedic I siddha drugs. Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit shows that the licensing authority and Director of Ayurveda Haryana, has approved the preparations of 'Chlormint' and 'Happydent', manufactured by the respondent I assessee under Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. 11. It is not disputed that there are three kinds of medicines available in the market. Firstly, the medicines which can be purchased from only approved chemist I pharmacist that too only on the prescription of the registered medical practitioner. 11. It is not disputed that there are three kinds of medicines available in the market. Firstly, the medicines which can be purchased from only approved chemist I pharmacist that too only on the prescription of the registered medical practitioner. Secondly, the medicines, which can be purchased from approved chemist I pharmacist but not necessarily required to be prescribed by registered medical practitioner. And thirdly, tt1e medicines, which can be purchased without prescription of any medical practitioner and can be, had not only from the shops of the approved chemists but also from other shops. It is not disputed that even those products containing formulae of constituents prescribed by authorized books of medicines, which are not prescribed by doctors and not required to be purchased necessarily from the approved chemists are also medicines, provided the same are manufactured under the drugs license, issued under Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. In the present case, the items -'Chlormint' and 'Happydent' are manufactured by the assessee I respondent under the drug license issued to it by the Directorate of Ayurvedic medicines of State of Haryana. As to the formulations, the quantity of 'Chlormint with Herbasole' and 'Happydent' are also mentioned in the covers they are sold (as is apparent from annexures filed with counter affidavit). As to the utility of 'Chlormint with Herbasole', as mouth fresheners and that 'Happydent' (white baking soda with mint flavour) to keep the teeth clean, are also not disputed. Only for the reasons these items are also purchased by some customers for taste also, does not make them confectionary items particularly when the same are manufactured under a valid drug license. As such, having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the principle of law laid down in M/s Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise Nagpur (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 266 and Naturalle Health Products (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector Central Excise, Hyderabad (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 136, and for the reasons discussed above, we hold that items- "Chlormint with Herbasole" and "Happydent" manufactured by the assessee under valid drug license are ayurvedic medicines and trade tax payable on said items is 4%, as provided in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 12. 136, and for the reasons discussed above, we hold that items- "Chlormint with Herbasole" and "Happydent" manufactured by the assessee under valid drug license are ayurvedic medicines and trade tax payable on said items is 4%, as provided in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Uttaranchal Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 12. However, applying the same principles, as discussed above, we hold that other items i.e. "Chlormint Candy", "Chlormint Ice", "Chlormint Gum", "Gum Dragy", "Chewable Gum Draggy" and "Chatar Patar", manufactured and sold by assessee I respondent, cannot be said to be ayurvedic preparations, as in respect of these items, it is not shown that the same are according to formulations prescribed by authoritative books of Ayurvadic medicines. Therefore, charging of 12.5% Trade Tax in respect of these items cannot be said to be wrong. 13. Accordingly, the question of law stands answered. And the four Revisions are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17-08-2007, passed by Chairman, Trade Tax Tribunal, Dehradun, in Second Appeal No. 74 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 75 of 2007, Second Appeal No. 76 of 2007, and Second Appeal No. 77 of 2007, stand modified accordingly.