TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the product "Nomark" was classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicament under Heading 3003.39 or as a cosmetic under Heading 3304.00; (ii) whether the assessee and the buyer company were related persons for valuation purposes; (iii) whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation; and (iv) whether the penalties could survive.
Issue (i): Whether the product "Nomark" was classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicament under Heading 3003.39 or as a cosmetic under Heading 3304.00.
Analysis: The product was sold under a drug licence, its label described it as intended for scars, pigmentation and pregnancy stretch marks, and the record showed medicinal and therapeutic use. The composition was found to be substantially similar to the earlier product "Wanish", which had already been treated as an Ayurvedic medicine. The fact that the product was also marketed through general outlets did not alter its essential character. The burden to prove that it was a cosmetic was on the department, and that burden was not discharged.
Conclusion: "Nomark" was held to be an Ayurvedic medicament classifiable under Heading 3003.39 and not a cosmetic under Heading 3304.00.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee and the buyer company were related persons for valuation purposes.
Analysis: The department relied mainly on shareholding by members of the assessee family, but no mutuality of interest or flow-back was established. The record also showed that the assessee sold the same product to different buyers at the same price, and there was no evidence of depressed pricing to the buyer company. In the absence of proof of relationship as contemplated by valuation law, the departmental finding could not stand.
Conclusion: The assessee and the buyer company were not related persons, and the price charged was the normal price.
Issue (iii): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Analysis: The extended period was justified only on the alleged relationship between the parties. Once that foundation failed, and there was no specific finding of suppression or misstatement in relation to classification, the invocation of the extended period was unsustainable. The demand was therefore hit by limitation.
Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was rejected.
Issue (iv): Whether the penalties could survive.
Analysis: The penalties were founded on the duty demand and on the alleged related-person transaction. Since the classification dispute was decided in favour of the assessee, the valuation basis failed, and the extended-period demand was set aside, there remained no foundation for penalties.
Conclusion: The penalties on the assessee and the connected parties were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The entire duty demand and all consequential penalties were set aside, and the three connected appeals succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A product sold under a drug licence and used for treating specified medical conditions is classifiable as a medicament when its essential character is medicinal, and valuation based on related-person pricing requires proof of mutuality of interest or flow-back, failing which extended limitation and penalties cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
