Commercial presentation governs excise classification: shampoo labelled as such falls in Chapter 33, and extended limitation needs wilful suppression.

A product marketed and labelled as shampoo was classifiable under Chapter 33, because its commercial presentation controlled its tariff identity and it could not be treated as an ayurvedic medicine merely due to its ingredients. The extended period of limitation was not sustainable, as the record showed only non-disclosure of the department and absence of registration, without wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. For the same reason, penalty, confiscation, fine in lieu of confiscation, and interest were set aside. Relief was therefore limited to limitation and consequential liabilities, while classification was decided against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product manufactured and sold as a shampoo was classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as an ayurvedic medicine under Chapter 30 of that Act; (ii) Whether the demand for the extended period was sustainable; (iii) Whether penalty, confiscation, fine in lieu of confiscation, and interest were leviable.

Issue (i): Whether the product manufactured and sold as a shampoo was classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as an ayurvedic medicine under Chapter 30 of that Act.

Analysis: The product was held out on its label as a plain hair wash and described as shampoo. Although it contained ayurvedic ingredients and those ingredients may have therapeutic value, the label and presentation governed its commercial identity. In view of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the product could not be treated as an ayurvedic medicine merely because of its ingredients.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable as shampoo under Chapter 33 and duty was payable accordingly, against the assessee on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the extended period was sustainable.

Analysis: The finding recorded by the adjudicating authority only showed failure to inform the department and failure to obtain registration. It did not record wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of six months.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty, confiscation, fine in lieu of confiscation, and interest were leviable.

Analysis: Since there was no element of mens rea and the extended period was not attracted, no penalty was warranted. For the same reason, confiscation of goods and fine in lieu of confiscation were not justified. Interest under Section 11AB was also held not payable in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalties, confiscation, fine, and interest were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on limitation, penalty, confiscation, and interest, but failed on classification, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A product marketed and labelled as a shampoo is classifiable according to its commercial presentation under Chapter 33, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a finding of wilful suppression or intent to evade duty.

---