Tariff classification of homeopathic hair oil follows composition, use and common parlance; cosmetic wording alone cannot change medicament status.

Classification of Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil turned on its composition, label, use and common parlance understanding. Because the product contained homeopathic medicines, was manufactured under a drug licence, was indicated for therapeutic complaints and functioned as a medium for administering medicine on the scalp, it retained the essential character of a medicament under Chapter 30 and not a cosmetic or toilet preparation under Chapter 33. The 2012 tariff amendments did not justify reopening the settled classification, since mere rewording of tariff entries does not alter a product's character where its ingredients, manufacture and use remain unchanged. The settled medicament classification was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product, Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil, was classifiable as a medicament under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as a cosmetic or toilet preparation under Chapter 33; (ii) Whether the 2012 tariff amendments justified a re-look at the product's settled classification.

Issue (i): Whether the product, Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil, was classifiable as a medicament under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as a cosmetic or toilet preparation under Chapter 33.

Analysis: Classification had to be determined on the basis of the composition of the product, its label, its use, and its understanding in common parlance. The product contained four homeopathic medicines, was manufactured under a drug licence, was indicated for hair fall, dandruff, headache and sleep-related complaints, and was described as homeopathic medicine under Schedule K to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The expression "hair oil" on the label did not alter its essential character where the product was used as a medium for administering homeopathic medicine on the scalp. A product with therapeutic or prophylactic use does not cease to be a medicament merely because it is sold across the counter or bears a cosmetic-sounding description. The product therefore satisfied the relevant tests for classification as a medicament and could not be treated as a cosmetic under Chapter 33.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classified as a medicament under Chapter 30 and not as a cosmetic or toilet preparation under Chapter 33.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2012 tariff amendments justified a re-look at the product's settled classification.

Analysis: A change in tariff wording or structure does not, by itself, justify reclassification when the product's composition, character and use remain unchanged. The amendments to Chapters 30 and 33 broad-banded the entries but did not alter the essential nature of the product. Since the product continued to be a homeopathic medicament and nothing material had changed in its ingredients, manufacture or use, there was no basis to reopen the settled position merely because the tariff entries were reworded.

Conclusion: The 2012 amendments did not justify any re-look or reclassification.

Final Conclusion: The settled classification in favour of medicament was upheld, and the demand founded on classification under Chapter 33 could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive inquiry is the product's composition, label, use and common parlance understanding; where a product remains a therapeutic or prophylactic medicament in substance, a mere change in tariff wording or the presence of a hair-oil description does not justify reclassification as a cosmetic.

---