1997 (12) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h (CDSW) for Procter & Gamble India Limited. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the classification of CDSW under Heading 3304 and rejected the petitioners claim for classification under Heading 3401. 3. The facts are that the petitioners had submitted a classification list on 28th April, 1992 classifying their product under Heading 3402.00 by mistake. The product was however, rightly classifiable as soap under Heading 3404.10. The above classification list was approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. In view of the above position, they filed a revised classification list on 30th November, 1992 rightly classifying their product under Heading 3401.10. 4. Consequent to budgetary chan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Thus the fact that Chapter note 2 of Chapter 34 clarifies that Heading 3404 covers soap which may contain added substance like disinfectants or medicaments or so has been equated. Therefore, even though it is advertised for treatment of acne, since it is basically a soap, it would continue to fall under Heading 3401.10. Further it is not a preparation for care of the skin of the type covered by Chapter 33, therefore, the lower authority should have upheld the classification as requested by them. It was his submission that the lower authorities could have got the sample tested. If that had been so done, the composition would have shown that it was basically a soap. It was also his submission that the lower authorities should not ignore the ....