TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court classifies Boroline as a drug under Tariff Item 14E, not cosmetic under Tariff Item 14F.</h1> <h3>GD. PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> GD. PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 205 (Cal.) Issues:Classification of Boroline under Central Excise Tariff Items 14E and 14F; Interpretation of Tariff Item 14F post-amendment in 1964; Validity of Tariff Advice No. 39/82; Impact of Explanation-II of Tariff Item 14F introduced in Finance Bill 1985; Determination of Boroline as a drug or cosmetic product.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the classification of Boroline under Tariff Item 14F as a cosmetic by the Central Excise authorities. The petitioner argued that Boroline was a drug and medicine, supported by a historical license granted for its manufacture under the Drugs Act, 1940. Previous disputes were settled in favor of classifying Boroline as a Patent and Proprietary Medicine under Tariff Item 14E, not as a cosmetic under Tariff Item 14F, as per a 1963 court order.Despite previous rulings, the respondents issued conflicting directives in 1982 and 1985, attempting to reclassify Boroline as a cosmetic under Tariff Item 14F. The petitioner contested these decisions through writ petitions, citing the historical classification and essential nature of Boroline as an antiseptic drug. The respondents' reliance on the 1985 Finance Bill amendments and Explanation-II of Tariff Item 14F to classify Boroline as a cosmetic was disputed.The court analyzed the essential character of Boroline, referring to a judgment from the Allahabad High Court, which classified Boroline as a drug based on its medicinal properties and intended use for preventing infections and treating skin ailments. The court concluded that the newly introduced Explanation-II to Tariff Item 14F did not alter the fundamental nature of Boroline as a drug, as extensively debated and determined in previous proceedings.Based on the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court judgment and the historical classification of Boroline as a drug, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court ordered relief in line with the petitioner's requests, emphasizing Boroline's classification as a drug under Tariff Item 14E. The judgment highlighted that Boroline's classification as a drug was well-established through prior legal proceedings and could not be altered solely based on the introduction of Explanation-II to Tariff Item 14F.The court granted a stay of operation for three weeks, maintained the interim order, and directed the department to provide copies of the order to the respective legal representatives. The judgment clarified the legal status of Boroline as a drug under the Central Excise Tariff, reaffirming its classification as a Patent and Proprietary Medicine under Tariff Item 14E, in line with historical precedents and judicial interpretations.
TaxTMI 