Classification of imported goods as cosmetics upheld where the assessee failed to support a medicines claim with samples or evidence.

Imported goods were held to be cosmetics rather than ayurvedic medicines or drugs because their names and descriptions showed moisturisers, fairness products, hair solutions and shampoo. The assessee did not produce samples for chemical examination despite opportunity and placed no reliable documentary evidence to support the claim of medicinal character. On that record, the assessing authority was entitled to classify the goods on their description and surrounding circumstances, and to draw an adverse inference from the absence of supporting proof. The classification under Entry 45 of Schedule-II(b) was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported products were classifiable as cosmetics under Entry 45 of Schedule-II(b) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, or as ayurvedic medicines and drugs under Schedule-II(a) of the Act.

Analysis: The products' names and descriptions indicated that they were cosmetic preparations such as moisturisers, fairness products, hair solutions and shampoo. The petitioner failed to produce samples for chemical examination despite opportunity, and no documentary material was placed to support the claim that the goods were medicines or drugs. In these circumstances, the assessing authority was justified in drawing an inference from the available material and in treating the goods as cosmetics.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified as cosmetics, and the tax demand based on Entry 45 of Schedule-II(b) was upheld against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed because the dispute on classification was resolved in favour of the taxing authority on the available record.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee fails to produce samples or reliable supporting evidence for chemical verification, the authority may classify the goods on the basis of their description and surrounding circumstances, and an adverse inference may be drawn against the assessee.

---