Product "Hydent-K" Classified as Medicament, Not Toothpaste, by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled on the classification of the product "Hydent-K" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The issue centered on whether the product falls under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 as a medicament or 3306.10 as toothpaste, impacting the duty payable. Analyzing the ingredients, the Tribunal found "Hydent-K" primarily comprised pharmacopeia drugs, aligning it with the medicament category. Referencing a prior case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Classification of product "Hydent-K" under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Whether under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 or 3306.10 and payment of differential duty.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue revolved around the classification of the product "Hydent-K" manufactured by the appellant under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The main question was whether the product falls under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 or 3306.10, determining the differential duty payable by the appellant. The appellant did not appear but submitted written submissions, requesting to dispose of other pending appeals. The revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon analyzing the submissions, the Tribunal focused on deciding whether "Hydent-K" toothpaste is a medicament falling under sub-heading 3003.10 or a toothpaste under 3306.10. The appellant cited a previous judgment involving IPCA Health Products Pvt. Ltd., which was distinguished by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on ingredient differences. The key ingredients in "Hydent-K" were Potassium nitrate B.P. and Sodium Monofluophosphate USP, both pharmacopeia drugs, making up the main components. In contrast, the IPCA product contained Strontium Chloride and Potassium nitrate as primary agents, along with non-pharmacopeia ingredients. The Tribunal concluded that "Hydent-K" being primarily based on pharmacopeia drugs, aligned more closely with the medicament classification in the previous IPCA case, warranting the judgment's application in the present scenario. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---