Shampoo classification under Chapter 33 prevails despite ayurvedic ingredients and therapeutic value in market description.

A product marketed and described as shampoo remains classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff as shampoo even if it contains ayurvedic or herbal ingredients and is said to have therapeutic value. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions treating the product's commercial description and market identity as decisive for classification, and found that such ingredients did not convert the item into an Ayurvedic medicine. On that basis, the herbal shampoo was classified under Chapter 33, and the Revenue's challenge to the contrary classification succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether shampoo powder described on the label as a shampoo, though containing ayurvedic or herbal ingredients with therapeutic value, is classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff as an Ayurvedic medicine or as a shampoo.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the question was already settled by earlier decisions holding that a product described as a shampoo remains classifiable as shampoo under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff even if it contains ayurvedic ingredients or has therapeutic value. Following that settled position, the product in question was treated as a herbal shampoo falling under Chapter 33 rather than as an Ayurvedic medicine.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff as shampoo and not as Ayurvedic medicine, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order classifying the product as Ayurvedic medicine was overturned and the Revenue's challenge succeeded on the issue of tariff classification.

Ratio Decidendi: A product marketed and described as shampoo is classifiable as shampoo under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff notwithstanding the presence of ayurvedic or herbal ingredients with therapeutic value.

---