Cosmetic deodorant classification sustained as skin-care preparation; unsupported limitation plea failed against the duty demand.

Deodorant preparations treated in technical literature as cosmetic skin-care products were held to fall within the relevant excise tariff item, and the assessee produced no material to displace that classification. The challenge to the duty demand on limitation also failed because the record showed that the adjudicating authority had already allowed for the limitation aspect, and no factual or legal basis was established to support the plea. The classification and duty demand were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether MUM deodorant was classifiable as a preparation for care of the skin under Item 14F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule; (ii) Whether the demand for duty was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether MUM deodorant was classifiable as a preparation for care of the skin under Item 14F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.

Analysis: The available technical literature treated deodorants as cosmetic preparations connected with skin care and as part of cosmetic emulsions and deodorant preparations. No evidence was produced to displace the departmental view or to show that the product fell outside the relevant tariff item.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the lower authorities was and was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for duty was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The record showed that the adjudicating authority had given due allowance for the limitation aspect, and the assessee did not substantiate the plea with any factual or legal basis.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed and was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and classification were sustained, and the appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Deodorant preparations that function as cosmetic skin-care products fall within the relevant excise classification, and an unsupported plea of limitation cannot defeat a duty demand where the adjudication has already accounted for the limitation period.

---