Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 242 - AT - Central ExcisePushpadi tail - Revenue claim classification under sub-heading No. 3304.00 - main contention of the Revenue that Lal tail is a massage oil, Pushpadi tail which is main ingredient of Lal tail has to be massage oil only and not ayurvedic medicine in view of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in respondent s own case, held that Lal tail is medicament - grounds taken by the Revenue in their appeal are not sustainable - held that Lal tail is medicament and is classifiable u/sh 3003.39
Issues: Classification of "Pushpadi tail" under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Detailed Analysis: 1. Issue: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal classifying "Pushpadi tail" under sub-heading No. 3003.39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, instead of under sub-heading No. 3304.00 as claimed by the Revenue. 2. Analysis: The Revenue argued that "Pushpadi tail" is the main ingredient of "Lal tail," which is considered a massage oil. They contended that since "Lal tail" was classified as a medicament by the Tribunal in a previous case, the same classification should apply to "Pushpadi tail" as well. 3. Issue: The Respondent submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the Tribunal's order regarding the classification of "Lal tail" as a medicament. 4. Analysis: The Respondent's advocate argued that the Supreme Court's decision established that "Lal tail" should be classified as a medicament under Chapter 30. Therefore, the main contention of the Revenue that "Pushpadi tail" should be classified as massage oil was not sustainable. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal based on the Supreme Court's ruling that "Lal tail" is a medicament. Consequently, the classification of "Pushpadi tail" under sub-heading No. 3003.39 was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|