Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the product in question was classifiable as an ayurvedic medicament under Heading 30.03 or as a cosmetic under Heading 33.04.
Analysis: The product was marketed for external use and was manufactured under a valid ayurvedic drug licence during the period in dispute. Its declared composition was predominantly castor-based with a proportion of Tulsi extract, and the leaflet accompanying it described multiple therapeutic uses for skin diseases, pains, wounds, cracks, infections, and related ailments. The medicinal uses of castor oil and Tulsi were also supported by literature relied upon by the assessee. The description of the product as being for dermal care did not convert it into a cosmetic, because the leaflet disclosed curative applications rather than beauty-enhancing use. In the absence of any dispute about composition, medicinal properties, or the drug licence, the product answered the description of a medicament and not a cosmetic.
Conclusion: The product was classifiable under Heading 30.03 as an ayurvedic medicament and not under Heading 33.04 as a cosmetic.
Final Conclusion: The demand founded on cosmetic classification failed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A preparation manufactured under a drug licence and shown by its composition and stated uses to have therapeutic or curative application for external ailments is classifiable as a medicament, and not as a cosmetic merely because it is also used for dermal care.