2019 (1) TMI 431 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court: Shampoo Classification for Excise Duty

The Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's finding that certain products, including Dena Ji Brand Satritha shampoo, were correctly classified as shampoo ... Classification of goods - Dena Ji Brand Satritha shampoo - Dena Ji Brand Harbal shampoo - Dena Ji Brand Neem shampoo - whether classifiable under heading 3003.20 or otherwise? - Held that:- the product in question was not used as ayurvedic medicine but was a “shampoo”. - Decision of lower authority sustained. The decision in Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan vs. C.C.E., Lucknow [2004 (10) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], is on facts of the said case, where it was held that the products are properly classified under Tariff Heading 3303.031, not applicable in the present case - SLP disposed off. Issues:1. Interpretation of excise duty applicability on specific products classified as ayurvedic medicines.2. Determination of extendable period for duty payment based on product classification.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of excise duty applicability on specific products classified as ayurvedic medicinesThe case involved a dispute regarding the classification of certain products as ayurvedic medicines exempt from excise duty. The petitioner argued that the goods in question, namely Dena Ji Brand Satritha shampoo, Dena Ji Brand Harbal shampoo, and Dena Ji Brand Neem shampoo, were classifiable under heading 3003.20 and should be considered ayurvedic medicines based on a previous court decision. However, the court found that the Commissioner's order had determined that the products were not used as ayurvedic medicines but were classified as 'shampoo.' The Commissioner's decision was based on the evaluation of evidence, including the ingredients and how the products were marketed. The court emphasized that the composition and curative properties of the products were disputed in this case, unlike the situation in the previous judgment cited by the petitioner. Therefore, the court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the products were not ayurvedic medicines and were correctly classified as shampoo for excise duty purposes.Issue 2: Determination of extendable period for duty payment based on product classificationAnother crucial aspect of the case was the application of the extendable period for duty payment. The petitioner contended that since the goods were classified as ayurvedic medicines and not subject to duty, the question of the extendable period for payment did not arise. However, the court noted that the Commissioner's order had classified the products as shampoo, which required duty payment. Therefore, the court found no fault with the impugned judgment that upheld the duty payment requirement based on the product classification as shampoo. Consequently, the court disposed of the special leave petition and any pending applications in accordance with the findings on the issues discussed.In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the classification of the products in question, emphasizing the importance of factual determinations in such cases. The judgment reaffirmed the significance of proper classification for excise duty purposes and upheld the duty payment requirement based on the product being classified as shampoo rather than ayurvedic medicine, as contended by the petitioner.