1994 (11) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of the product under Tariff Item 14F(ii) vs. TI 68, Recalculation of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises & Salt Act.

Analysis:
In the present case, two appeals were taken up together for disposal as they involved a common question of facts and law. The first appeal (E/2012/88-C) arose from an order-in-appeal confirming a demand of Rs. 66,960.41 for the period 1-4-1985 to 30-9-1985. The department contended that the appellants were manufacturing "Hair Sprays" and should be classified under TI 14F instead of TI 68. The appellants argued that their product was a Hair Spray and not a hair lotion, hair cream, or shampoo, emphasizing the differences in composition and function. The Asstt. Collector upheld the classification under TI 14F, which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).

In the second appeal (2763/88-C), the classification of the product under TI 14F(ii) w.e.f. 17-3-1985 was challenged. The Asstt. Collector classified the product under TI 14F(ii) based on the expanded scope of the tariff item, which now included various hair care products. The appellants argued that their product was solely a Hair Spray, not falling under the cosmetics and toilet preparation category under TI 14F. They relied on a previous judgment but the JDR contended that the amended Tariff Item 14F was exhaustive and covered all hair care preparations. The Tribunal found that the product was indeed for the care of the hair and fell under TI 14F(ii) as per the amended tariff.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and noted that the product, being a preparation for the care of the hair, was rightly classified under TI 14F(ii). The term "such as" in the tariff was interpreted as illustrative and not exhaustive, as per previous judicial interpretations. The Tribunal also addressed the plea regarding the computation of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. It was held that the duty quantification should be in accordance with the said provision, and the matter was remanded to the lower authorities for recalculating the duty.

Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the classification of the product under TI 14F(ii) and directed the reevaluation of duty in compliance with Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act, disposing of the appeals accordingly.