Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2007 (2) TMI 604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....01, were allowed with the findings that "Boro Soft" cream manufactured by the assessee at Gujarat and sold in Uttar Pradesh after receiving by stock transfer is to be taxed under the entry "all kinds of cosmetics" at 15 per cent and not as "ayurvedic medicine " at eight per cent. The assessing authority on remand found that "Boro Soft" is a cosmetic and will fall within the entry of "all kinds of cosmetics and preparation" under notification dated September 7, 1991. The Joint Commissioner (Appeal), however, found that "Boro Soft" is used as medicine and that the Joint Commissioner (Drugs), Foods and Drugs Control Administration, Gujarat, has certified that the "Boro Soft&quot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Base The wrapper further declares that the cream is an ayurvedic medicine for external use only. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgments in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sharma Chemical Works . . . .05" [2003] 132 STC 251 (SC); [2004] 24 NTN 28 (SC), Union of India v. G.D. Pharmaceutical Limited [2000] 118 STC 19 (SC), and a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Commercial Tax, M.P. v. Dawar Brothers, Indore [1998] 111 STC 319; [1988] UPTC 1211 in support of his submission. Shri B.K. Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the Department, however, has relied upon Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2006] 145 STC 200 (SC); [2006] 196 ELT 3 (SC) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT was wrong in classifying them under Chapter 33 as cosmetics. According to the learned counsel the products in question have a special use. They are not items of common use. Only those who want to treat a particular ailment will go for the particular product of the appellant. The use of a product by the customers, i.e., how the consumers take to a product is a very useful method of determining the classification of products. What is to be seen is whether the products are likely to be in common use by normal consumers. Common parlance meaning and understanding is a strong factor in the determination of classification of products. One need not resort to scientific or technical meaning of the terms used. 5.. So far as the other test is conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s defined as follows: "A 'cosmetic' means any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, or introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and includes any article intended for use as a component of cosmetic." In Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P.) Ltd. [2006] 145 STC 200; [2006] 196 ELT 3, the Supreme Court held that in order to find out whether the item is a medicament, it is not necessary that the item may be sold only under the doctor's prescription. A medicinal preparation may be purchased across the counter. The common parlance test however has to be applied along with the other test, namel....