2008 (9) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Chennai Upheld Classification of Bath Extract: Heading 30.03 Prevails

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI upheld the lower authority's classification of the product 'extract for bath and toilet preparation' under Heading ... Classification of “extract for bath and toilet preparation” - classification dispute is between Heading 30.03 (claimed by the assessee) and Heading 33.07 (claimed by the Revenue) - lower authority classified the item under Heading 30.03 as “Ayurvedic Medicament” and, accordingly, granted the assessee the benefit of ‘Nil’ rate of duty under Notification No. 75/94-C.E. – impugned order is sustained – SC decision in the case of Dabur India Ltd . is applicable - of the Revenue’s appeal dismissed Issues:Classification dispute between Heading 30.03 and Heading 33.07 for 'extract for bath and toilet preparation'.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved a classification dispute regarding the product 'extract for bath and toilet preparation'. The lower authority had classified the item under Heading 30.03 as 'Ayurvedic Medicament', granting the assessee the benefit of 'Nil' rate of duty under Notification No. 75/94-C.E. The appellant contested this classification, arguing that it was done without considering the therapeutic or prophylactic value of the goods. However, the Tribunal found precedent in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, where a similar product was classified under Heading 30.03 without the requirement to demonstrate therapeutic or prophylactic use. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority had relied on Circular No. 334/50/97-CX, which was upheld by the apex court in the Dabur case.Regarding procedural matters, the respondents had filed two applications along with the appeal. One application sought a change in the name of the respondents, supported by a Certificate of Registration indicating the new name as 'Cholayil Private Ltd.'. The Tribunal allowed this application, changing the name of the respondents accordingly. The second application requested the appellant to supply certain documents relevant to the dispute. However, this application was dismissed as it was not pressed by the respondents during the proceedings.Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's classification under Heading 30.03, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The impugned order was sustained, and both applications were disposed of. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 22-9-2008, bringing the matter to a conclusion before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.