Ayurvedic medicament classification prevails where therapeutic use is shown and Revenue fails to prove cosmetics under Chapter 33

For classification between Chapters 30 and 33, the Revenue had to first prove that the goods were cosmetics or toilet preparations within Chapter 33; its evidence from packaging, advertisements and a hospital opinion was insufficient, so the burden was not discharged. The 28.02.2005 tariff amendment removed the need for labels or literature to expressly indicate cosmetic use, but it did not dispense with the basic requirement that the goods fall within Chapter 33. As the products were manufactured under an ayurvedic drug licence, drew ingredients from authoritative ayurvedic texts, and were used therapeutically and prophylactically for skin and hair disorders, they were classifiable as ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30; rule 3(c) had no application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendments made to the tariff provisions with effect from 28.02.2005 altered the classification position of the products in dispute; (ii) whether the Department discharged its burden to prove that the products were classifiable under Chapter 33; (iii) whether the products were classifiable as ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 or as cosmetics under Chapter 33; and (iv) whether rule 3(c) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule applied.

Issue (i): Whether the amendments made to the tariff provisions with effect from 28.02.2005 altered the classification position of the products in dispute.

Analysis: The post-amendment change removed the earlier requirement that labels or literature should indicate use as cosmetics or toilet preparations, but it did not dispense with the basic requirement that the goods must first be shown to be cosmetics or toilet preparations falling within the relevant headings. Chapter 30 continued to exclude preparations of Headings 3303 to 3307, and Chapter 33 continued to apply only to goods suitable for use as those headings and put up in retail packing for such use.

Conclusion: The amendment did not by itself shift the products into Chapter 33.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department discharged its burden to prove that the products were classifiable under Chapter 33.

Analysis: The burden to establish classification under a particular tariff heading lay on the Revenue. The evidence relied upon by the Department, including packaging, advertisements and the hospital opinion, was held insufficient to conclusively prove that the products were cosmetics. On the material available, the Department had not established that the goods answered the description of cosmetics under Chapter 33.

Conclusion: The Department failed to discharge its burden.

Issue (iii): Whether the products were classifiable as ayurvedic medicaments under Chapter 30 or as cosmetics under Chapter 33.

Analysis: The products were manufactured under an ayurvedic drug licence, the ingredients were shown to be drawn from authoritative ayurvedic texts, and the evidence indicated therapeutic and prophylactic use for skin and hair disorders. The common parlance test and the medicinal character of the preparations supported classification as medicaments rather than cosmetics. The fact that the products may also improve appearance did not alter their primary therapeutic character.

Conclusion: The products were classifiable as medicaments under Chapter 30 and not as cosmetics under Chapter 33.

Issue (iv): Whether rule 3(c) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule applied.

Analysis: Rule 3(c) applies only when goods cannot be classified by reference to rules 3(a) or 3(b). Since the products were found classifiable by reference to their essential character under rule 3(b) and were held to fall under Chapter 30, there was no occasion to invoke rule 3(c).

Conclusion: Rule 3(c) had no application.

Final Conclusion: The tariff dispute was resolved in favour of treating the goods as ayurvedic medicaments, resulting in allowance of the assessee's appeals and rejection of the Department's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification between Chapters 30 and 33, the Revenue must first prove that the goods are cosmetics or toilet preparations within Chapter 33; where the products are shown to be manufactured under an ayurvedic licence, have ingredients drawn from authoritative ayurvedic texts, and are primarily used for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes, they are classifiable as medicaments and the mere removal of a packaging-description requirement does not alter that conclusion.

---