9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of the term "perfumed hair oils" under Item 14F(ii)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Summary: Issue 1: The respondent, a manufacturer of perfumeries, challenged the classification of their products as "perfumed hair oils" under Item 14F(ii)(b) of the Act. The Central Excise Authorities contended that the thailams manufactured by the respondent fell within this category and were liable for excise duty. The respondent argued that their thailams were solely intended for use as bath oils, not for grooming hair, and were not marketed as hair oils. The original authority upheld the classification, stating the thailams could be used for hair care. The appellate authority also supported this view, citing the depiction of a woman with long hair on the product label as suggestive of hair care use. Issue 2: The High Court analyzed whether the thailams prepared by the respondent could be considered "perfumed hair oils" as per the legal definition. The Court noted that the products were primarily used as bath oils, applied before bathing, and were not specifically marketed or intended for hair care. The Court emphasized that the classification by the authorities must not be arbitrary or unreasonable to be upheld. It was highlighted that the presence of a woman with long hair on the product label did not definitively indicate the intended use as hair oil. The Court also referenced a previous case regarding the definition of perfumes to support the argument that the thailams did not meet the criteria of perfumed hair oils. Conclusion: After considering all arguments and evidence, the High Court agreed with the learned single Judge's decision that the thailams manufactured by the respondent were not appropriately classified as "perfumed hair oils." The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment that the products were rightly categorized as bath oils and not subject to excise duty under Item 14F(ii)(b) of the Act.
|
