9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Revitalising Hair Nutrient manufactured by the Respondents. Both the Original and the first Appellate authorities had decided the classification under 3305.10 in the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff heading as perfumed hair oil . However the Revenue wants to classify the goods under 3305.99 as other preparations for use on the hair . 3. The grounds of the appeal in brief are as follows :- (i) The name of the goods Anti Dandruff Hair Vitaliser apart from being perfumed which is done to get rid of unpleasant odour and make it acceptable to the Customer, contains ingredients such as Tea-Tree Oil and Neem Oil which act as anti-dandruff agent. Similarly Revitalising Hair Nutrient contain ingredients such as Bringaraja, Amalaki, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of perfume is added and the impugned goods are mainly for anti-dandruff and for hair growth as can be seen from the various ingredients. Moreover, the products are not marketed as perfumed hair oil. Hence they merit classification under Chapter Heading 3305.99. 6. The learned Chartered Accountant submitted the following points :- (i) It is not important as to how the product is marketed. The CESTAT in case of Amit Ayurvedic and Cosmetic Products (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 354 (Tribunal - Del.) has held that even though the product parachute dandruff solution coconut hair oil contains anti fungal property, while classifying the product, specific identity will prevail over the general identity and accordingly the it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (supra) which is not correct as the issue in that case is whether the product should be classified under Chapter 30 or 33. In the present case, both the authorities have classified under Heading 3305. The dispute is only the sub-heading. 7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. It is not in dispute that the impugned item is hair oil. Both the Revenue and Respondent agree to the main classification 3305. The dispute is only with regard to the sub-heading. According to the Respondent, the goods are classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 as perfumed hair oil whereas according to the Revenue, the goods come under sub-heading 3305.99. Since there is difference in the rate of duty, the Revenue is challenging the classific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
