Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2003 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (4) TMI 102 - SC - Central Excise


  1. 2023 (5) TMI 191 - SC
  2. 2013 (8) TMI 467 - SC
  3. 2009 (4) TMI 6 - SC
  4. 2008 (9) TMI 4 - SC
  5. 2007 (11) TMI 21 - SC
  6. 2006 (11) TMI 3 - SC
  7. 2006 (5) TMI 91 - SC
  8. 2006 (3) TMI 141 - SC
  9. 2005 (4) TMI 57 - SC
  10. 2004 (12) TMI 92 - SC
  11. 2003 (11) TMI 69 - SC
  12. 2024 (1) TMI 296 - HC
  13. 2023 (11) TMI 212 - HC
  14. 2023 (6) TMI 57 - HC
  15. 2023 (5) TMI 855 - HC
  16. 2022 (6) TMI 1210 - HC
  17. 2020 (3) TMI 1317 - HC
  18. 2019 (10) TMI 94 - HC
  19. 2019 (5) TMI 204 - HC
  20. 2019 (3) TMI 1817 - HC
  21. 2019 (10) TMI 486 - HC
  22. 2018 (9) TMI 1424 - HC
  23. 2018 (6) TMI 1661 - HC
  24. 2018 (3) TMI 1487 - HC
  25. 2018 (3) TMI 1683 - HC
  26. 2018 (2) TMI 1816 - HC
  27. 2017 (9) TMI 677 - HC
  28. 2017 (4) TMI 1241 - HC
  29. 2017 (5) TMI 267 - HC
  30. 2017 (1) TMI 1465 - HC
  31. 2016 (12) TMI 1740 - HC
  32. 2017 (1) TMI 202 - HC
  33. 2016 (1) TMI 1230 - HC
  34. 2015 (11) TMI 1319 - HC
  35. 2013 (4) TMI 496 - HC
  36. 2012 (11) TMI 1062 - HC
  37. 2012 (12) TMI 908 - HC
  38. 2014 (5) TMI 368 - HC
  39. 2011 (12) TMI 471 - HC
  40. 2010 (10) TMI 233 - HC
  41. 2010 (8) TMI 1090 - HC
  42. 2010 (4) TMI 688 - HC
  43. 2007 (7) TMI 634 - HC
  44. 2005 (11) TMI 448 - HC
  45. 2004 (5) TMI 540 - HC
  46. 2004 (1) TMI 94 - HC
  47. 2024 (7) TMI 685 - AT
  48. 2023 (9) TMI 567 - AT
  49. 2021 (6) TMI 1026 - AT
  50. 2019 (12) TMI 522 - AT
  51. 2018 (2) TMI 1397 - AT
  52. 2017 (9) TMI 943 - AT
  53. 2017 (3) TMI 1439 - AT
  54. 2016 (12) TMI 533 - AT
  55. 2016 (11) TMI 7 - AT
  56. 2016 (4) TMI 600 - AT
  57. 2015 (10) TMI 1568 - AT
  58. 2015 (4) TMI 732 - AT
  59. 2014 (6) TMI 136 - AT
  60. 2014 (6) TMI 342 - AT
  61. 2011 (10) TMI 92 - AT
  62. 2008 (8) TMI 179 - AT
  63. 2008 (3) TMI 63 - AT
  64. 2007 (5) TMI 31 - AT
  65. 2007 (2) TMI 573 - AT
  66. 2006 (12) TMI 24 - AT
  67. 2005 (12) TMI 411 - AT
  68. 2005 (12) TMI 159 - AT
  69. 2023 (9) TMI 125 - AAR
  70. 2022 (3) TMI 486 - AAR
  71. 2021 (3) TMI 140 - AAR
  72. 2020 (11) TMI 1028 - AAR
  73. 2009 (9) TMI 938 - AAR
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Banphool Oil as a "perfumed hair oil" or an "Ayurvedic Medicament".
2. Interpretation of relevant Tariff Items and Chapter Notes.
3. Burden of proof regarding the classification of the product.
4. Admissibility and relevance of expert opinions and circulars.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Classification of Banphool Oil:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether Banphool Oil should be classified as a "perfumed hair oil" under Tariff Item 3305.10 or as an "Ayurvedic Medicament" under Tariff Item 3003.30. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) had a split decision, with the majority classifying it as an Ayurvedic Medicament. The Supreme Court agreed with the majority opinion, noting that the product is used for treating various ailments and is registered with the Drug Controller, manufactured under a drug license.

2. Interpretation of Relevant Tariff Items and Chapter Notes:
The Additional Solicitor General argued that Banphool Oil should be classified under Chapter 33, which deals with perfumed hair oils. He cited Chapter Note 1(d) of Chapter 30, which states that preparations under Chapter 33, even with therapeutic properties, remain as toilet preparations. The respondent countered that Chapter 30 covers all types of medicines, and the ingredients of Banphool Oil are listed in Ayurvedic texts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the primary criterion for classification is the product's use by consumers, which in this case, is for medicinal purposes.

3. Burden of Proof:
The Court reiterated that the burden of proof to show that a product falls within a particular Tariff Item is on the revenue. The revenue failed to provide evidence that Banphool Oil is understood by consumers as a hair oil rather than a medicament. The Court noted that the product's label indicates its medicinal uses and dosages, supporting its classification as an Ayurvedic Medicament.

4. Admissibility and Relevance of Expert Opinions and Circulars:
The respondent highlighted a Board Circular dated 5th December 1991, which directs that in case of doubt regarding the classification of a product as an Ayurvedic Medicament, the matter should be referred to the State Drug Licensing Authority. The Drug Controller had opined that Banphool Oil is an Ayurvedic preparation. The Court held that the revenue should have followed this circular and referred the matter to the Adviser, Ayurveda, if doubts persisted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the majority opinion of the Tribunal, classifying Banphool Oil as an Ayurvedic Medicament under Tariff Item 3003.30. The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Court emphasized the importance of consumer perception and expert opinions in determining the classification of products under the Excise Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates