TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etic Dermatitis (popularly known as 'Dandruff) and Tinea Versicolor. According to the appellants, the therapeutic properties are imparted to the product, by the presence of the active ingredient, Selenium Sulfide in a 1% w/v concentration. While the Appellants claim the product as classifiable under Tariff Heading 3003.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereafter, "the CETA") as a "medicament", the department contends that the product is classifiable under Tariff Heading 3305.99 of the CETA as a "preparation for use on the hair". During the relevant period, the entries under the CETA stood as under :- 30.03 Medicaments (including veterinary medicaments) 33.05 Preparations for use on the hair 303.10 - Patent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. Martindales Extra Pharmacopoeia, Remington's Pharmacopoeia etc., also clearly set out that the therapeutic quantity of Selenium Sulfide is 1% to 2.5% and SELSUN BLUE is listed as a product containing Selenium Sulfide in therapeutic quantities. (iii) The appellants manufacture SELSUN BLUE under the Drugs Licence being Licence No. 675, and the Licence has been granted and renewed from time to time by the Drugs Controller, State of Maharashtra. (iv) SELSUN BLUE is prescribed by Registered Medical Practitioners for the treatment of Dandruff and Tinea Versicolor as affirmed by various Registered Medical Practitioners in their Affidavits. (v) The label pasted to and product literature put together with SELSUN BLUE also clearly bear out that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (181) E.L.T. 206 (S.C.)] (b) Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2004 (167) E.L.T. 374 (S.C.)] (c) Dabur (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (182) E.L.T. 290 (S.C.)] (d) Hagel Capsule Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2004 (172) E.L.T. 470 (Tri.)] (e) Sarvotham Care Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (185) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.)] (f) Kamal Chandravadan Shah v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2004 (165) E.L.T. 520 (Tri.)] 6. The learned D.R. argues that mere certification by the Drugs control authorities is not sufficient to decide classification under the C.E.T. In this regard he cites the following circulars of the Board :- (i) Circular No. 333/49/97-CX., dt. 1....