2004 (6) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 61/2000 (H-II)-C.E. dated 4-10-2000, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the prayer for classification of the product 'shower to shower prickly heat powder' m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd held that the product is only cosmetic and toilet preparation for classification under chapter Heading 33.04 of CETA. The appellant's prayer for classification of product as a medicament falling under chapter Heading 30.03 was rejected. 2. At the outset, Ld. Sr. Counsel points out that the classification of the very product, i.e. 'prickly heat powder' manufactured by Johnson & Johnson c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said judgment of the Apex Court, the issue is squarely covered and hence the appeal is required to be allowed with consequential relief. 3. Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue points out that the judgment of the Apex Court applies to the facts of the case, however, he reiterates the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions mad....