Common parlance and therapeutic use kept the goods classified as ayurvedic medicaments, defeating cosmetic classification.

Products with unchanged composition and therapeutic content were treated as ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter Heading 30.03, not cosmetics under Chapter 33, because their essential character and trade understanding remained medicinal. Evidence from medical practitioners, consumers, traders and ayurvedic material supported the medicament classification, while advertisements, packing style and export-oriented labelling were insufficient to prove cosmetic character. Applying the common parlance and trade parlance test, the burden to show cosmetic classification was not discharged, so the contrary duty demand could not stand and the assessee's classification was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed products were classifiable as ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter Heading 30.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as cosmetics under Chapter 33, and whether the consequent duty demand could be sustained.

Analysis: The products had earlier been accepted in proceedings involving the same goods as ayurvedic medicaments, and the record showed no material change in their composition or therapeutic contents. The assessees produced extensive evidence from medical practitioners, consumers, traders, and ayurvedic material to support the medicinal character of the goods, while the department relied mainly on advertisements, packing material, and general commercial perception. The mere fact that the goods were marketed differently for export did not alter their essential character, particularly when export labelling adaptations were consistent with the requirements applicable in foreign markets. The department did not adduce material sufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the goods were cosmetics. Applying the common parlance and trade parlance approach, the goods continued to be understood as medicaments and not cosmetics.

Conclusion: The products were held to be ayurvedic medicaments classifiable under Chapter Heading 30.03 and not cosmetics under Chapter 33, and the duty demand founded on the contrary classification was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's classification was accepted, the impugned orders classifying the goods under Chapter 33 were set aside, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the essential character, therapeutic use, and trade understanding of a product establish it as an ayurvedic medicament, it cannot be classified as a cosmetic merely because of advertisements, packing style, or export-oriented labelling.

---