Common parlance test for tax classification placed Boroplus in cosmetics, not medicines, despite its protective skin-care properties.

Himani Boroplus was held, on common parlance and commercial understanding, to fall under cosmetics rather than medicines for tax classification. Because the relevant entries were not statutorily defined, the court applied ordinary market meaning and noted that a product is not a medicine merely because it has antiseptic, curative, preventive or protective properties, or is manufactured under a drug licence. A medicine must be intended and understood as a treatment product. Boroplus was commonly sold in cosmetic or general merchandise shops and used for skin care and smoothening, so it was taxable under the cosmetic entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether Himani Boroplus is classifiable as a medicine or as a cosmetic and toilet preparation for the purpose of tax under the relevant notification.

Analysis: The entry for medicines and the entry for cosmetics were not statutorily defined, so the correct approach was to apply common parlance and commercial understanding. The surrounding authorities showed that a product is not a medicine merely because it has some antiseptic, curative, preventive, or protective effect, or because it is manufactured under a drug licence. A medicine must be intended for treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease and be understood in the market as such. By contrast, cosmetics and toilet preparations include products used for care of the face and skin, not only for beautification but also for maintenance and protection. On the evidence noticed in the judgment, Boroplus was generally sold in cosmetic or general merchandise shops, was commonly used for winter skin care and smoothening, and was not regarded in common parlance as a medicinal product.

Conclusion: Himani Boroplus is a cosmetic and is liable to tax under the cosmetic entry, not as a medicine.

---