Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the two products, namely Boroquein Prickly Heat Powder and Boroquein Antiseptic Perfumed Cream, were classifiable as ayurvedic medicines or as preparations for care of the skin under the relevant tariff entries for the periods before and after 28-2-1986.
Analysis: The products were found to contain pharmaceutical or antiseptic ingredients, but their curative or prophylactic value was only subsidiary. Explanation II to T.I. 14F treated cosmetics and toilet preparations as included within that tariff entry even where they contained subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents or were held out as having subsidiary curative or prophylactic value. The products were therefore treated as skin-care preparations and, in substance, as cosmetics. The Tribunal also followed its earlier classification of a similar prickly heat powder under the same tariff treatment for the two relevant periods.
Conclusion: The products were classifiable under T.I. 14F up to 28-2-1986 and under CET sub-heading 33.04 from 1-3-1986 onwards, and the assessee's claim to classification as ayurvedic medicines was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the classification adopted by the Revenue was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the essential character of a product is that of a cosmetic or skin-care preparation, the presence of only subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic ingredients does not take it out of the relevant cosmetic tariff entry.