Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-IV v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 445

SUPREME COURT
M.R. Shah, J
Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-IV v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Table of Content
1. classification debate between medicament vs cosmetic based on product function. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. key factors in classification include primary use and therapeutic attributes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. previous case law underscores importance of common parlance in determining product classification. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. department's failure to provide evidence regarding product classification supports appellant's stance. (Para 15 , 17 , 18)

1. 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. Chap.3