Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (9) TMI 1654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Rules, 1944 claiming the classification under Sub-heading 3003.39 of CETA, 1985 as an ayurvedic proprietary medicine attracting duty of 10%. The department was of the view that the said items being cosmetic preparations would fall under the classification 3305.90. A show-cause notice was issued demanding differential duty along with interest and also proposing for penalty. The original authority confirmed the demand, but, however, did not impose any penalty. Being aggrieved by confirmation of duty and classification, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the impugned goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3003.39 and, therefore, se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en carried away by the fact that the respondents have obtained the drug license for the product. But the product is not sold in the market as medicine and that it is advertised in TV and other media as preparations for use on the hair and is understood by public as toiletry requisite only. The respondents have not produced any evidence to claim that the product has been prescribed by any medical practitioner to be called as a medicine. The respondents having not discharged their burden of proof to classify the item under Chapter Heading 30, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have held that the products are classifiable under Chapter Heading 30. The learned Authorised Representative also relied upon the decision rendered by Tribunal in ....