9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 22-3-1985. They contended that unmixed products which were not directly used like that of the appellants became exigible only with effect from 17-3-1985 when Explanation III was added to Item 14F of the Tariff. However, on the grounds that the product in question was being marketed by the appellants as a hair oil and was also known to their dealers and consumers as a hair oil the Assistant Collector held that it was correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 14F. For these reasons and also on the ground that a part of the claim for refund of duty pertained to the period beyond the period of six months, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Assistant Collector the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who while rejecting the appeal by the impugned order dated 25-8-1987 did not go into question whether the appellants claim was time barred. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the appellants product being hair oil in concentrated form was covered by Tariff Item 14(ii)(b) even prior to the insertion of Explanation III in Tariff Item 14F with effect from 17-3-1985. 2. On behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund had been claimed was done on the basis of the approved price lists. He added that the label on the product and the I.S.I. specification cannot be the basis for classification of a product and it was well settled that in these matters what is relevant is how any item is known and treated in the trade. He stated that in the permanent S.S.I. Registration Certificate issued to the appellant in 1977 the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras the appellants were registered only for the manufacture of Hair Oil and according to the Trade Mark Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks as well the product in question has been described as a hair oil. He pointed out that in the Certificate of Renewal of the Licence for the manufacture of cosmetics also the appellants, the concerned authority had described their product as Rita Hair Oil . He also referred to the copies of the documents at pages 6 to 9 of the Paper Book filed by the Department and stated out that the appellants product was known only as a hair oil in the trade since in the orders placed by different dealers it had been described as hair oil . He contended that from these documents it was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Madras High Court in the case of Union of India v. T.S.R. Co., reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 702 the label on a product and advertisement which is suggestive of use for attracting customers cannot be the determining factor for the classification of a product. The appellants have contended that even in terms of the Indian Standard Specification for Hair Oil (No. SS 7123-1973) which places hair oil and hair oil concentrates in distinct categories their product has to be deemed as a hair oil concentrate and not a perfumed hair oil since it was usable only by mixing with 10 or 20 times the quantity of other oils such as coconut oil or mustard oil. In this regard we find that in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 it has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that specifications issued by Indian Standard Institution being meant for ensuring quality control are not relevant for determining the class to which the goods belong in a Tariff Schedule. Hence the I.S.I. specification which has been referred to by appellant cannot be of any assistance to them. 6. It is well settled that goods have to be classified under the tariff sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been registered for the manufacture of only hair oil. In the Certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as wefl the product in question was described as hair oil. It is also seen that in the certificate of renewal of licence for the manufacture of Cosmetics issued to the appellants the concerned authority had described their product as Hair Oil . The copies of the documents at pages 6 to 9 of the Paper Book filed by the respondents disclose that the dealers in different parts of the country while placing orders on the appellants for the supply of the disputed product had also been describing the product as Rita Hair Oil . It is therefore evident that even prior to 17-3-1985 when Explanation III was added to Item 14F of the Tariff in common and trade parlance the disputed product was known as a hair oil. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the appellants contention that prior to 17-3-1985 their product had to be treated as a concentrate or compound classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff has no force at all. 8. We find that in the literature which was being supplied along with the product, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
