Product classification depends on predominant character, and Microshield-2 was treated as a medicament rather than a skin care preparation.

Classification of Microshield-2 turned on its composition, label description and predominant character. Although the product was used as an antiseptic, the presence of emollient and moisturiser elements and its description as a skin cleanser showed that skin care was its main function, with antiseptic action only subsidiary. The drug licence did not alter the result because it related to a different composition, and the evidence did not establish that the goods were a medicinal topical antiseptic. Earlier treatment in the assessee's own matter was also followed, and the product was classified under Heading 3003.10 rather than Heading 3304.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product Microshield-2 was classifiable as a medicament under Heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as a skin care preparation under Heading 3304.

Analysis: The product was treated as an antiseptic used on medical certificates, but the tariff classification turned on its composition, label description, and predominant character. The product contained emollient and moisturiser elements and was described as a skin cleanser, so its main function was held to be care of the skin, while antiseptic action was only subsidiary. The reliance on the drug licence did not assist the appellant because the composition referred to there was different, and the evidence did not show that the goods answered the description of a medicinal topical antiseptic. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view in the assessee's own case and held that mere percentage issues, not raised in the notice, could not displace classification as a medicament when the product was accepted as an antiseptic use product.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Heading 3003.10 and not under Heading 3304, and the appeal succeeded.

---