SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 833

A.K.SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. – Respondent


Judgment :

A.K. Sikri, J.

The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether Vaseline Intensive Care Heel Guard (for short, 'VHG') is to be treated as merely a skin care preparation or it is a medicament having curing properties. Based on the answer to the aforesaid question, classification of this product will be determined. If it is only a skin care preparation then VHG is classifiable under Chapter Heading 3304.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'). On the other hand, if it is to be treated as a medicament, VHG would get covered under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the First Schedule. The rate at which the excise duty is payable depends on the said classification.

2) Chapter 33 under which the Revenue wants to cover VHG pertains to 'essential oils and resinoids; perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations' and, therefore, 40% duty is paid. Entry 33.04 thereof, which is specifically sought to be attracted by the Revenue, reads as under:

“33.04 Beauty or make-up preparations and preparations for the care of the skin (other than medicaments), including sunscreen and suntan preparations; manicure or pedicure preparations”

3) If a particu













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top