Classification of hair oil versus ayurvedic medicine turns on authoritative formulation and essential character

Ghrit Kumari Tel was held to fall under the perfumed hair oil entry rather than as an ayurvedic medicine because the assessee did not show manufacture according to any formula prescribed in authoritative ayurvedic texts. The product's description, marketing and pleasant fragrance showed that its essential character was a hair-care oil meant to promote bright, thick, dark and long hair. Applying Note 6 to Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff, the product was treated as classifiable under the hair-oil heading and not under the ayurvedic medicine heading.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product "Ghrit Kumari Tel" is classifiable as an ayurvedic medicine under CET sub-heading 3003.30 or as a perfumed hair oil under CET sub-heading 3305.10.

Analysis: The product could not be treated as an ayurvedic medicine because the assessee failed to show that it was prepared in accordance with any formula prescribed in authoritative ayurvedic texts. The materials relied upon did not establish compliance with the recognised criteria for an ayurvedic preparation. The product was described and marketed as a hair-care oil for bright, thick, dark, long hair, and it had a pleasant fragrance, indicating that its essential character was that of a perfumed hair oil. In view of Note 6 to Chapter 33 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the product was appropriately classified under the hair-oil heading.

Conclusion: The product is not classifiable as an ayurvedic medicine under CET sub-heading 3003.30 and is correctly classifiable as a perfumed hair oil under CET sub-heading 3305.10.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product is not shown to be manufactured according to authoritative ayurvedic formulations and its use and presentation show that it is essentially a perfumed hair oil, it is classifiable under the hair-oil tariff entry rather than as an ayurvedic medicine.

---