Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (8) TMI 179 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of a product Face to Face , a cream/lotion assessee claims the product to be a medicament used for treating skin diseases - department plea that the product is a cosmetic falling under CSH 33.04, is not acceptable it is a herbal preparation of highly curative value - held that product is classifiable as ayurvedic preparation under CSH 3003.30 further, bar of unjust enrichment doesn t apply to refund claim from finalization of assessment for period prior to year 1999
Issues:
1. Correct classification of the product 'Face to Face' (FTF) - medicament or cosmetic. 2. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/2005 regarding classification. 3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 54/2000 regarding refund of excess duty. Issue 1: Correct classification of the product 'Face to Face' (FTF) - medicament or cosmetic. The case involved determining whether 'Face to Face' manufactured by M/s. Dollar Company Private Ltd. should be classified as a medicament or a cosmetic. The assessee claimed it to be an ayurvedic medicine under Chapter 3003.30, while the department argued it was a cosmetic under CSH 3304. The original authority confirmed it as a cosmetic and imposed duty demands for specific periods. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed various factors, including medical practitioner certificates and clinical trial reports, to conclude that 'Face to Face' was prescribed for skin ailments, supporting its classification as an ayurvedic medicament. The Commissioner considered the product's ingredients, marketing literature, and therapeutic properties in making this determination. Issue 2: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/2005 regarding classification. The Revenue appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/2005, challenging the classification of 'Face to Face' as a medicament under Chapter 3003.30. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented, including medical practitioner certificates, clinical trial reports, and the product's packaging and ingredients. Citing relevant case laws, such as Daga Ayurvedic & Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd. and BPL Pharmaceuticals cases, the Tribunal upheld the classification of 'Face to Face' as an ayurvedic preparation, emphasizing its therapeutic and prophylactic properties. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the product's classification as an ayurvedic medicament. Issue 3: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 54/2000 regarding refund of excess duty. The Revenue challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 54/2000, which determined that a refund of excess duty paid by the respondent did not involve unjust enrichment. The appeal was based on the contention that the principle of unjust enrichment applied even in cases of refund from finalization of provisional assessment. The Tribunal referred to the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, where the Apex Court held that the unjust enrichment principle did not apply in such cases before a contrary provision was enacted in 1999. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal without merit and dismissed it, upholding the decision regarding the refund of excess duty. This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made by the Tribunal in the cases concerning the classification of 'Face to Face' and the refund of excess duty, providing a detailed overview of the judgment's intricacies and legal reasoning.
|