2011 (2) TMI 402 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - the claim of the assessees for classification of Vaseline Intensive Care Prickly Heat Lotion under CET sub-heading 3003.10 as a Patent or Proprietary Medicament, as against the Revenue s claim for classification as Skin Care Preparation under CET sub-heading 3304.00 - Held that - it has already been held by the Tribunal in the case of FREZCO CORPORATION v. CCE 1992 -TMI - 82676 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI that Calamine I.P. has therapeutic and prophylactic uses - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "Vaseline Intensive Care Prickly Heat Lotion" under CET sub-heading 3003.10 as a Patent or Proprietary Medicament vs. classification as "Skin Care Preparation" under CET sub-heading 3304.00.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the classification of "Vaseline Intensive Care Prickly Heat Lotion" by the Revenue under CET sub-heading 3304.00 as a Skin Care Preparation, contrary to the assessees' claim for classification under CET sub-heading 3003.10 as a Patent or Proprietary Medicament. The product's composition includes Calamine IP, Glycerine IP, Triclosan, and Base. The Revenue relied on a test report dated 6-11-1995, stating the properties of the ingredients. However, the Tribunal previously held in the case of Ferzco Corporation that Calamine I.P. has therapeutic and prophylactic uses, a decision upheld by the Apex Court. This precedent was reaffirmed in another case involving Ferzco Corporation. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In this case, the key issue revolves around the proper classification of the product "Vaseline Intensive Care Prickly Heat Lotion." The dispute arises from differing interpretations of the product's nature, with the Revenue advocating for classification as a Skin Care Preparation under CET sub-heading 3304.00, while the assessees argue for classification as a Patent or Proprietary Medicament under CET sub-heading 3003.10. The composition of the product, including Calamine IP, Glycerine IP, Triclosan, and Base, plays a crucial role in determining its classification.

The Tribunal considered the test report provided by the Revenue, outlining the properties of the product's ingredients. Despite the report's contents, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments, notably the case of Ferzco Corporation, where it was established that Calamine I.P. possesses therapeutic and prophylactic uses. This precedent was further strengthened by an Apex Court decision upholding the Tribunal's findings. Subsequently, the Tribunal relied on this legal precedent to uphold the Commissioner's order accepting the assessees' classification of the product as a Patent or Proprietary Medicament under CET sub-heading 3003.10, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for classification under CET sub-heading 3304.00.

The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of legal precedent in determining the classification of products under specific sub-headings. By referencing previous judgments and legal interpretations regarding the therapeutic and prophylactic properties of Calamine I.P., the Tribunal established a consistent approach to classification disputes. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of legal precedents and their impact on the interpretation and application of classification rules in excise matters.