Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 235 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - revitalizing hair nutrient - antidandruff hair vitaliser - whether the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant are to be classified as perfumed hair oils under 3305.10 or as other preparations for use in the hair under 3305.99? - Held that - the product which undoubtedly is made for use on hair also contains several ayurvedic ingredients which are said to have properties to promote hair growth, etc. The product has been added with perfume only to get rid of unpleasant odour and make it acceptable to the customer. From the above, it is evident that it is not in the nature of perfumed hair oil but more in the nature of other preparations for use on hair with unique medicinal properties - an issue similar to the present one was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Vasu Pharmaceuticals 1999 (4) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that Trichup oil cannot be considered as ayurvedic medicament. It is admittedly a product meant for use on the hair. However, it is neither a perfumed hair oil nor hair fixture and therefore it appropriately gets covered in the category of other under sub-heading 3305.99 of the Schedule - the product classified under 3305.99 of the CETA as prevailed at the relevant time - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
Classification of hair care products under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Whether products classified as perfumed hair oils under 3305.10 or as other preparations for use on hair under 3305.99. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Hair Care Products The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (A), Bangalore, regarding the classification of two hair care products - revitalizing hair nutrient and antidandruff hair vitaliser. The dispute arose as the Revenue authorities believed these products claimed to prevent hair loss, promote hair growth, and control dandruff. The original authority classified the products under No.3305.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, while the respondent argued for classification under 3305.10 as a preparation for use on hair. The Commissioner (A) concluded that the products were perfumed hair oils, falling under 3305. Issue 2: Revenue's Arguments The Revenue contended that the disputed products contained ayurvedic proprietary medicines and were marketed as hair vitalisers, not perfumed hair oils. The primary function of the products was claimed to be preventing hair loss, promoting hair growth, and controlling dandruff. Citing case laws, the Revenue argued that the products should be classified under 3305.99 as other preparations for use on hair, considering the ayurvedic ingredients present. Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving Trichup oil and upheld the classification under 3305.99 as an "other" preparation for use on hair. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the products, although intended for hair use, contained ayurvedic ingredients promoting hair growth. The addition of perfume was to mask unpleasant odors, indicating the products were not perfumed hair oils but had unique medicinal properties. Consequently, the Tribunal classified the products under 3305.99, setting aside the impugned order and reinstating the Order-in-Original. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, classifying the hair care products under 3305.99 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, based on their unique medicinal properties and ayurvedic ingredients, distinguishing them from perfumed hair oils.
|