COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT versus M/S. ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT versus M/S. ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.

The respondent's product, with perfume as one of its disclosed ingredients, must be classified as perfumed hair oil under SH 3305.10. No appeal against Tribunal's refusal to classify as 'Ayurvedic Medicament'. Perfume addition is part of manufacturing process; thus classification as perfumed hair oil is upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat; Respondent: Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Classification Under Central Excise Tariff Act, Ayurvedic Medicaments Vs. Cosmetics, Manufacturing Process Disclosure, Perfumed Hair Oil Classification
Tax Law Central Excise Customs Classification Under Central Excise Tariff Act Ayurvedic Medicaments Vs. Cosmetics Manufacturing Process Disclosure Perfumed Hair Oil Classification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat

Appellant

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'Alma Lio' hair oil manufactured by respondent should be classified as Ayurvedic medicament or perfumed hair oil under Central Excise Tariff Act
  2. 2 Whether the product is a cosmetic or a medicament for excise duty purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's product, with perfume as one of its disclosed ingredients, must be classified as perfumed hair oil under SH 3305.10. No appeal against Tribunal's refusal to classify as 'Ayurvedic Medicament'. Perfume addition is part of manufacturing process; thus classification as perfumed hair oil is upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Product classifiable as perfumed hair oil under SH 3305.10
  • Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority to recompute duty of excise payable