9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oo. Another aspect is that the classification of the product is determined on the basis of the process of manufacture and its proclaimed use and utility. The fact as to how the product is used, after it is manufactured, can not at all be taken into account. For instance, in respect of shampoos themselves, there are instances, where people use them for washing vehicles or cleaning floors, because their chemical impact is relatively less. On that account, the product cannot be treated as a washing medium. The circumstances under which the petitioner is said to have obtained licence for manufacturing shampoo, are not immediately before us. It is only when the relevant conditions are verified, that the proper conclusion can be arrived at. We have already mentioned that the purpose, which a particular enactment serves, are different from those under other enactments, though incidentally the same product may be dealt with by both of them. Further, the predominant object under the Act is to ensure that the products are not manufactured without licence. Unless necessary material is placed before us, we do not intend to deal with the contentions in this regard, in detail. - Writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even in the ordinary parlance, the product is used as a cure for dandruff and other related ailments and thereby, it acquired medicinal value. He contends that every parameter that was indicated by the Honble Supreme Court in B.P.L.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.s case (1 supra) applies to the facts of the present case and that the impugned order is liable to set aside. He further submits that in the case of the petitioner itself, the Central, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal passed an order on 18.01.2005, during the pendency of the writ petition, holding that the product falls under Sub-heading 3003.10 of the Tariff Act and though the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, at the instance of the respondents, as of now, the contention of the petitioner deserves acceptance. Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhale, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, since an effective alternative remedy is provided for under the Central Excise Act. He further submits that the classification of manufactured items with reference to the Tariff Act is a complicated process and that where technical aspects are involved, the matter must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of medicinal values and of no relevance for application to hair, it could have formulated the name accordingly omitted the word shampoo, at least after the dispute has arisen. Heavy reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.P.L.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.s case (1 supra). In that case, the name of the product is Selsun. Initially, the product was also named as Selsum Shampoo. After some time, the word shampoo was dropped and it was being sold as Selsun. The literature and other material that was placed before the adjudicatory authority, i.e., Central Board of Excise ad Customs disclosed that the component by name Selenium Sulfide contained in it is a product, to cure certain skin diseases and its presence in profound quantity made the product nearer to medicine. After recounting the various values, which the product had, and the factum of the dropping the word shampoo, the Supreme Court agreed with the opinion expressed by the Central Board of Excise0 and Customs, which classified it as medicine. The importance and existence of word shampoo, rather the absence thereof, was dealt with by the Honble Supreme Court as under: Elaborating the above submissions, the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce is placed before the writ court for an unambiguous conclusion upon technical matters to be reached, those authorities might be apposite, but we must stress that where intricate technical processes are involved, it is proper that the writ court should direct writ petitioners to agitate their grievances before statutory authorities who are more competent to assess the merits thereof. Howsoever tempting it may be for a Court or Tribunal to undertake by itself, the analysis of classification or to take into account, the utility of the product, that would tend to be an encroachment into the jurisdiction, which the Parliament conferred on other agencies. Another aspect is that the classification of the product is determined on the basis of the process of manufacture and its proclaimed use and utility. The fact as to how the product is used, after it is manufactured, can not at all be taken into account. For instance, in respect of shampoos themselves, there are instances, where people use them for washing vehicles or cleaning floors, because their chemical impact is relatively less. On that account, the product cannot be treated as a washing medium. Another instance is of white ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Government by notification in the Official Gazette, after consultation with the Board; The import or manufacture of drugs as well as cosmetics is dealt with under the same provision. The licensing process is also common. The circumstances under which the petitioner is said to have obtained licence for manufacturing shampoo, are not immediately before us. It is only when the relevant conditions are verified, that the proper conclusion can be arrived at. We have already mentioned that the purpose, which a particular enactment serves, are different from those under other enactments, though incidentally the same product may be dealt with by both of them. Further, the predominant object under the Act is to ensure that the products are not manufactured without licence. Unless necessary material is placed before us, we do not intend to deal with the contentions in this regard, in detail. The 2nd respondent has taken into account, the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.P.L.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.s case (supra) and made a clear analysis as to how the facts of the present case are at variance with that of the one before the Supreme Court. We therefore do not find any merits in the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
