TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>'Close-Up Whitening' Classified as Dental Cleaner, Not Toothpaste</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Versus M/s. Global Health Care Products Partnership Firm & Others</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Versus M/s. Global Health Care Products Partnership Firm & Others - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 365 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Classification of 'Close-Up Whitening' under the correct sub-heading of the Excise Tariff.2. Whether 'Close-Up Whitening' is a toothpaste or a dental cleaner.3. Validity of the Commissioner's reliance on HSN Notes for classification.4. Evidence regarding market perception of 'Close-Up Whitening'.5. Tribunal's findings on the classification of 'Close-Up Whitening'.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of 'Close-Up Whitening' under the correct sub-heading of the Excise Tariff:The primary issue revolves around whether 'Close-Up Whitening' should be classified under Chapter sub-heading 3306.10 (toothpaste) or 3306.90 (other dental hygiene products) of the Excise Tariff. The Revenue argued that 'Close-Up Whitening' falls under 3306.10, while the assessee contended it should be classified under 3306.90.2. Whether 'Close-Up Whitening' is a toothpaste or a dental cleaner:The Revenue's position was that 'Close-Up Whitening' is essentially a toothpaste, as the differences in ingredients do not alter its fundamental character. The Tribunal, however, concluded that 'Close-Up Whitening' is a dental cleaner, not a toothpaste. This conclusion was based on the presence of additional ingredients (Silicon Agglomerate and Bluer Agglomerates) and a different manufacturing process involving more stages and time compared to regular toothpaste.3. Validity of the Commissioner's reliance on HSN Notes for classification:The Commissioner relied on HSN Notes to classify 'Close-Up Whitening' under sub-heading 3306.10, interpreting 'dentifrices' to include toothpaste. The Tribunal found this approach flawed, noting a significant difference between the Indian statute and the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. The Tribunal emphasized that the Indian tariff specifically lists 'tooth powder' and 'toothpaste' under 3306.10, whereas HSN's 'dentifrices' is more generic.4. Evidence regarding market perception of 'Close-Up Whitening':The Tribunal found no evidence from the Revenue that 'Close-Up Whitening' was known to consumers as toothpaste. The Tribunal's finding that 'Close-Up Whitening' is not recognized as toothpaste but as a dental cleaner was supported by the lack of contrary evidence from the Revenue.5. Tribunal's findings on the classification of 'Close-Up Whitening':The Tribunal's decision was based on several points:- The differences in ingredients and manufacturing processes between 'Close-Up Whitening' and regular toothpaste.- Expert testimony from Mr. N.H. Bijlani, who differentiated between toothpaste and dental cleaners.- Historical classification of similar products under 3306.90 when the duty rates were higher.- Registration of the product as a dental cleaner by the Food and Drug Authorities (FDA), not as toothpaste.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that 'Close-Up Whitening' is not a toothpaste but a dental cleaner. Consequently, it should be classified under sub-heading 3306.90. The appeals were dismissed, confirming that 'Close-Up Whitening' does not fall under the toothpaste category for excise duty purposes.
TaxTMI 