Specific tariff entry prevails for pure henna powder; duty, interest and penalties fail without positive evidence of hair-preparation use.

Pure henna powder packed and marketed as such was treated as a specific tariff-covered product under sub-heading 1404 10 19, not as a hair preparation under Chapter 33. The classification dispute turned on the principle that a specific tariff entry prevails over a general or residuary heading, and on the department's failure to produce positive evidence showing a different end use or hair-cosmetic character. On that basis, the proposed duty, interest and penalties could not be sustained, and the assessee's claimed classification was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether pure henna powder packed and marketed by the assessee was classifiable under Chapter 33 as a preparation for use on the hair or under sub-heading 1404 10 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and whether the resulting demand of duty, interest and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the product in question was a hair preparation falling within Chapter 33 or a specific vegetable product covered by sub-heading 1404 10 19. The order under challenge had proceeded on the basis of alternate classification under Chapter 33, but no specific sub-heading was identified thereunder for henna powder. By contrast, the tariff itself contained a specific entry for henna powder under sub-heading 1404 10 19. The packing material and use directions did not show that the product was projected as a hair preparation. The revenue also failed to adduce positive evidence to justify departure from the assessee's claimed classification or to establish end-use as a hair cosmetic preparation. In these circumstances, the specific tariff entry was preferred over the general or residuary classification.

Conclusion: Pure henna powder was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 1404 10 19 and not under Chapter 33. The demand of duty, interest and penalties was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the assessee succeeding on classification and the consequential levy and penalties failing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product answers a specific tariff entry, the specific entry prevails over a general or residuary entry, and the department must discharge the burden of proving a different classification by positive evidence.

---