2008 (8) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of the product "Suds Neem Dog Soap" under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

The dispute in the appeal pertains to the classification of the product "Suds Neem Dog Soap" under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant contended that it should be classified under SH 3401.19, while the assessee classified it under SH 3401.11. The lower appellate authority upheld the assessee's classification, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The main contention was whether the product should be considered as toilet soap or soap for other uses under the Tariff. The Chemical Examiner's report played a crucial role in determining the classification, with the appellant arguing for the former and the respondents supporting the appellate Commissioner's findings.

Upon review, it was established that the product in question is indeed a soap. The relevant Tariff Schedule during the material period included different sub-headings under Heading 34.01 for soap in any form. The Chemical Examiner's report highlighted that the "Suds Neem Dog Soap" was specifically formulated for dogs, containing neem oil with insecticidal properties. The original authority classified it as toilet soap under SH 3401.19 based on this report, but the appellate authority correctly noted the presence of silicate and insecticidal properties, distinguishing it from traditional toilet soaps. Trade parlance was also considered, emphasizing the unique purpose of dog soaps compared to those for human use. Consequently, the product was classified as "soap other than for toilet use" under SH 3401.11, affirming the lower appellate authority's decision and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, in its judgment, clarified the classification of the product "Suds Neem Dog Soap" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, emphasizing the distinct properties and intended use of the product in question.