9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of the term "cosmetics" under entry 19 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involves a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding the classification of a product named "Bain D" or "Deodorant Lavender Cologne" under the relevant entry of the Act. 2. The controversy revolves around whether the product in question qualifies as a cosmetic under entry 19 of Schedule E to the Act, or if it should be categorized under the residuary entry 22 of the same schedule. 3. The assessee contended that the product did not fall under any specific entry and should be classified under the residuary entry. The Commissioner disagreed and classified it as a cosmetic under entry 19. The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, after considering various factors, held that the product was not a cosmetic but should be classified under the residuary entry. 4. The critical issue was to determine whether the product met the definition of "cosmetics." The product was described as having ingredients like isopropyl alcohol, hexachlorophene, and perfume, with the purpose of destroying bacteria in perspiration. The question was whether such a product could be considered a cosmetic. 5. The definition of "cosmetic" from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Webster's Dictionary was cited to establish that the term encompasses products used for cleansing, conditioning, or protecting the body, not just for beautification. This definition includes items like anti-perspirants, which are used to prevent body odour. 6. The Court concluded that products like deodorant cologne are commonly understood as cosmetics, even in ordinary parlance. Therefore, the product in question, "Bain D" or "Deodorant Lavender Cologne," should be classified as a cosmetic under entry 19 of Schedule E to the Act. 7. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect, and the product should indeed be classified as a cosmetic. Consequently, the first question posed in the reference was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue. 8. As a result of the determination regarding the first question, the second question did not require an answer. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
