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

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (11) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ves powder as main ingredients as well as different other ingredients also and packed and sold in 100 grams packing to household buyers to prepare hair oil. 2. On 1-4-95, the appellartt filed revised classification list No. 3, wherein they declared his products as masala pudies under Chapter/Heading No. 1401.00 and cleared goods valued at Rs. 6,89,205/- at Nil rate of duty from June, 98 to Nov. 98. The adjudicating authority classified the same under Chap ter/Heading No. 3305.99 attracting central excise duty @ 30% Adv., amounting to Rs. 2,06,762/-. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 3-12-98 which was adjudicated vide OIO No. 12/DC/DA/2002 dated 28-6-2002 wherein the same products were classified under Sub-Heading No. 3305.09/330 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able to classified under chapter No. 14. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Mayial Mark Nilayain reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 659 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the product which is mixture of one or more natural plants or seeds or dry berries or leaves, put up in a packed container, is not covered under Chapter No. 33, nor is an excisable item. 6. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the com missioner's observation that M 37 is not comparable with the products in dispute is not correct. The Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of appellants themselves had in its order reported at 1997 (92) E.L.T. 162 had observed that M37 is classifiable under 3305.90 that it is consider .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rations for use on the hair are covered and in the case of M37, the purchaser has to just mix it with the oil and use it. Whereas in this case the purchaser has to undertake a detailed process and it requires three days for preparing the final preparation which arises. Therefore, he submits that what they are providing are only raw materials which can be used for making perfumed hair oil which is a preparation for use on the hair. Therefore their product is not covered by the Heading. Further, he also drew our attention to the conclusions arrived at in the tariff conference and the conference concluded that masala pucties consisting of various herbs and are used as additive to hair oil is classifiable under Chapter Heading 14 only. 8. We h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 only. In this regard we take note of the fact that according to the appellants both the products are entirely different and the differences pointed out by the appellants are reproduced in the form of a table below: Difference Between M37 And Masala Pudi   M37 MASALA PUDI 1. Foods and drugs control administration approved this products as a cosmetic preparation. 1. Foods & drugs control administration approved this product as a AYURVEDIC preparation, as it is not a cosmetic 2. After mixing with oil, it beautifies the hair. 2. It does not beautify the hair, If applied on hair it will make the hair dirty and ugly. The purpose of cosmetic is to beautify, but it does not beautify. 3. This is an additive to prepare hair oil, 3. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... product cannot be called as a preparation for use on the hair. Further, we also find that the cases relied upon by the Revenue in support of the contention that the product is to be classified under Chapter 3305 are also not relevant. Both henna powder and shikakai powder are directly applied to the hair after mixing with water and therefore the products are not comparable to the present item. Similarly, the case of Superintendent of Central Excise, B'Lore v. Karnataka Soapnut Powder Mfrs. Asscn. reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 27 (Kar.) is also not relevant in view of the fact that in that case the Hon'ble High Court was considering whether preparation of shikakai powder from shikakai amounts to manufacture. Once again shikakai powder is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates