Common parlance and Ayurvedic text tests support medicament classification over cosmetics where primary use is medicinal.

Products capable of both medicinal and cosmetic use were classified by applying the common parlance test and the statutory distinction between cosmetics and medicaments. Goods are medicaments when they are understood as medicines for treatment, prevention, cure or mitigation of disease, and where their ingredients are supported by authoritative Ayurvedic texts. Evidence of use for cuts, wounds, burns and related skin conditions, supported by practitioner affidavits, certificates, prescriptions, licences, labels and texts, showed medicinal character. Mere cosmetic utility or the presence of fillers did not change that character. The burden to prove classification as cosmetics lay on the revenue, and it was not discharged; the products were treated as medicaments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the products in question were classifiable as cosmetics or as medicaments for purposes of taxation.

Analysis: The classification depended on the ordinary meaning of the expressions and on the statutory distinction in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 between cosmetics and drugs or medicaments. Cosmetics are intended for cleansing, beautifying or enhancing appearance, while medicaments are used for treatment, prevention, cure or mitigation of disease or ailment. The applicable test was whether the goods are understood in common parlance as medicines and whether their ingredients are found in authoritative Ayurvedic texts. The evidence adduced by the assessee, including affidavits of medical practitioners, certificates, prescriptions, licences, labels and Ayurvedic texts, showed that the products were used for treating cuts, wounds, burns and related skin conditions. The revenue led no rebuttal evidence. Mere presence of cosmetic utility, or the use of fillers and small quantities of medicinal ingredients, did not alter the character of the goods where their primary use was medicinal. The burden to prove classification as cosmetics lay on the revenue, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The products were held to be medicaments and not cosmetics, and the classification adopted by the taxing authorities was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The connected revisions were disposed of by accepting the assessee's classification challenge and rejecting the revenue's contrary position on the nature of the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: For goods capable of medicinal and cosmetic use, classification turns on the common parlance test and the ingredient-based Ayurvedic text test, and the burden to prove a higher-taxable cosmetic classification lies on the revenue.

---