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 - 2005 (2) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (2) TMI 129 - SC - Central Excise


Issues: Classification of a product under tariff sub-heading 3808.10 or 3003.10.

In this judgment, the issue revolves around the classification of a product known as "LICEL" by the Appellants. The Appellants claim that their product should be classified under tariff sub-heading 3808.10, while the Department argues that it should be classified under tariff sub-heading 3003.10. The Tribunal, relying on a previous judgment concerning a similar product, held that the product falls under tariff sub-heading 3003.10. The Appellants contest this classification based on chemical examiners' reports and market perception of the product as an insecticide. However, the Court analyzes the definition of "Medicament" under Chapter 30, emphasizing that even if a product is perceived as an insecticide, if it has therapeutic or prophylactic use, it cannot be classified under Chapter 38. The Court concludes that LICEL, used for killing lice in human hair, serves therapeutic and prophylactic purposes, making it a Medicament under Chapter 30 and excluding it from Chapter 38. This interpretation is consistent with a previous case involving a similar product. Consequently, the Court upholds the Tribunal's judgment, dismissing the Civil Appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the specific definitions and criteria outlined in the tariff headings and chapter notes for the proper classification of products. It underscores the significance of the therapeutic and prophylactic use of a product in determining its classification, even if it is commonly perceived as something else, such as an insecticide. The Court's analysis focuses on the legislative intent behind the classification system and the need for a comprehensive assessment of a product's intended use to ensure accurate classification under the relevant tariff sub-headings. The reference to previous judgments and consistency in interpretation further solidify the Court's decision in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates