Ayurvedic medicament classification and provisional-assessment refund not barred by unjust enrichment for the relevant period.

A product marketed and prescribed for therapeutic use, supported by ayurvedic ingredient recognition in accepted literature and medical opinion, was classifiable as an ayurvedic medicament under Chapter 3003.30 rather than as a cosmetic under Chapter 3304. Applying the product's use, presentation, and common perception, the Tribunal found its curative character prevailed over any cosmetic appearance, so the Revenue's classification challenge failed. Refund of excess duty arising from finalisation of provisional assessment was also not barred by unjust enrichment for the relevant period, as the settled position then excluded that bar and the later contrary provision did not apply. The assessee therefore retained both the favourable classification and the refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product 'Face to Face' was classifiable as an ayurvedic medicament under Chapter 3003.30 or as a cosmetic under Chapter 3304 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether refund of excess duty paid on finalisation of provisional assessment was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the product 'Face to Face' was classifiable as an ayurvedic medicament under Chapter 3003.30 or as a cosmetic under Chapter 3304 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The product was described and marketed as an ayurvedic preparation, the ingredients were found in recognised ayurvedic literature, and medical practitioners had prescribed it for skin ailments. The product literature held out curative and therapeutic use rather than mere cosmetic enhancement, and the Revenue did not establish that it was commonly known as a cosmetic. Applying the classification approach based on use, presentation, and common perception, the therapeutic character of the product prevailed over its cosmetic appearance.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classified as an ayurvedic medicament under Chapter 3003.30 and not as a cosmetic.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of excess duty paid on finalisation of provisional assessment was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund arose from finalisation of provisional assessment. The decision relied on the settled position that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to such refunds for the period in question, and the later contrary statutory provision had no application to the dispute period. On that basis, the refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: Both challenges raised by the Revenue failed, and the assessee retained the benefit of classification as an ayurvedic medicament as well as the refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product is marketed and prescribed for therapeutic use, supported by medical opinion and ayurvedic ingredient recognition, it is classifiable as a medicament rather than a cosmetic; refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment is not defeated by unjust enrichment for the relevant period.

---