Ayurvedic medicament classification requires real therapeutic use; cosmetic hair preparations fall outside Chapter 30, and disclosure defeats extended limitation.

Products claimed as Ayurvedic medicaments were classified as preparations for use on the hair under Heading 33.05 because Chapter 30 requires real therapeutic or prophylactic use, and the mere presence of ingredients mentioned in Ayurvedic texts was insufficient. The record showed cosmetic presentation and marketing, while evidence of medicinal use was inadequate. On limitation, the assessee's disclosure of manufacture and product details negated suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended period under the excise law could not be invoked and penalty was not sustainable. Classification was therefore upheld, but the demand for the extended period and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the products manufactured were classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 or as preparations for use on the hair under Heading 33.05 of the Central Excise Tariff. (ii) Whether the demand for the extended period and the consequential penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the products manufactured were classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 or as preparations for use on the hair under Heading 33.05 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: Under Note 2 to Chapter 30, a medicament must be a product having therapeutic or prophylactic use. Mere presence of ingredients mentioned in Ayurvedic texts is not enough to bring a product within Chapter 30. Notes 1(d) to Chapter 30 and Note 2 to Chapter 33 exclude preparations of Chapter 33, even if they have subsidiary curative value. The record showed that the products were marketed and used as hair preparations, with labels and packaging indicating cosmetic use, while the evidence of therapeutic use was insufficient to establish that they were mainly medicines.

Conclusion: The products were not classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments and were correctly treated as preparations for use on the hair under Heading 33.05.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the extended period and the consequential penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee in April 1994 disclosed the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines and enclosed the list of products, so suppression of manufacture was not established. In the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. For the same reason, penalty was not leviable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The classification was upheld in favour of the Revenue, but the demand for the extended period and the penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under Chapter 30, the product must have real therapeutic or prophylactic use, and where full disclosure is made, the extended limitation period and penalty cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression or intent to evade duty.

---