1999 (4) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of TRICHUP OIL under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Determination of whether TRICHUP OIL is an ayurvedic medicament or a hair oil.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of TRICHUP OIL under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:

The primary issue in this case is whether TRICHUP OIL should be classified under Heading 30.03 as an ayurvedic medicament or under Heading 33.05 as a hair oil. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing ayurvedic medicines, argued that TRICHUP OIL is an ayurvedic formulation certified by the State Drug Control Authorities and should be classified under Heading 30.03. The department, however, issued a show cause notice seeking to classify the product under Heading 33.05, arguing that TRICHUP OIL is marketed as a herbal hair tonic and primarily serves as a hair oil despite its therapeutic properties.

2. Determination of whether TRICHUP OIL is an ayurvedic medicament or a hair oil:

The appellant contended that TRICHUP OIL, manufactured under a drug license, contains ingredients specified in standard ayurvedic texts and is used for treating hair-related diseases. The product is marketed to medical practitioners and chemists, indicating its use for treating conditions such as dandruff, premature greying, and fungal infections. The appellant referenced the Supreme Court judgment in B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. C.C.E., which classified an anti-dandruff preparation as a medicament due to its therapeutic properties and licensing under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The respondent argued that the product literature does not support the appellant's claims, emphasizing that the product is marketed for hair application rather than as a medicinal treatment for the scalp or body. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence, particularly the instructions on the product packaging, which directed users to massage the oil on dry hair without specifying its medicinal use on the scalp.

The Tribunal examined the ingredients of TRICHUP OIL, noting that the primary components are sesame oil and coconut oil, with other ingredients present in minimal quantities. The Tribunal found no evidence that these ingredients, in their specified proportions, confer any significant medicinal properties. The absence of specific instructions regarding the frequency and duration of application further weakened the appellant's claim that the product is a medicament.

The Tribunal distinguished this case from the B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. case, noting that TRICHUP OIL is marketed and sold primarily as a hair product, not as a medicinal treatment. The Tribunal concluded that the product is not recognized in common trade parlance as a medicine for preventing or curing diseases but is meant for hair care. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the classification of TRICHUP OIL under Heading 33.05 as a hair oil, confirming the orders of the lower authorities.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that TRICHUP OIL should be classified under Heading 33.05 as a hair oil rather than an ayurvedic medicament under Heading 30.03. The decision was based on the product's marketing, usage instructions, and the lack of evidence supporting its medicinal properties in the specified proportions.