JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Preliminary and brief outline

1. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 31.01.2018, as passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal¹[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Tribunal’.], insofar as relating to Appeal No. E/30050/2016²[The order bearing No. 30121 of 2018.], whereby the Tribunal has disapproved and reversed the order dated 16.10.2015, as passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad³[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Adjudicating Authority’.] in HYD-EXCUS-004-COM-042-15-16.

⁷[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1944’.]

1.1. By the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2015 in relation to the period from December 2013 to November 2014, the Adjudicating Authority held that the product in question, known as “Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil” ⁴[For short, ‘AHAHO’.] could not be classified as ‘medicament’ under Tariff Item 3003 90 14 or under any item stated in Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985⁵[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’.]- ⁶[In the discussion hereinafter, reference to the relevant Chapter or the relevant Tariff Item is always pertaining to the ‘First Schedule to the Act of 1985’, unless indicated otherwise.]; and that the product in question, being “Hair oil”, was required to be classified as ‘cosmetic’ under Tariff Item 3305 90 19. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand to the tune of Rs.2,72,14,266/- on the respondent for the differential duty payable in terms of Section 11-A (10) of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 19447; ordered payment of interest on the said differential duty in terms of Section 11-AA of the Act of 1944; and imposed penalty in the sum of Rs.54,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the CENTRAL EXCISE RULES , 2002.

1.2. However, the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal by its impugned order dated 31.01.2018 and the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside. The Tribunal held that the product in question, AHAHO, fell in the category of ‘medicament’ and hence, was rightly classified under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1985.

1.3. An ancillary but intertwined aspect of the matter had been that the product in question was being classified as ‘medicament’ under the said Chapter 30 since the year 1994. According to the respondent, this classification was regularly accepted by the Department in the past with at least two successive orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, there was no justification in re-examining the issue. The Adjudicating Authority expressed the view that because of material amendment of the tariff entries in Chapters 30 and 33 in the year 2012, classification of the product in question required re-examination. The Tribunal, however, did not approve of this proposition of the Adjudicating Authority.

1.4. The appellant is aggrieved of the order so passed by the Tribunal and hence, has preferred this appeal while asserting that the product in question had rightly been classified by the Adjudicating Authority as ‘cosmetic’ in terms of Chapter 33 and hence, th