Back
SUPREME COURT
N.V. Ramana, CJ, M.M. Shantanagoudar, J
Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-IV v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vhg classification issue based on its medicament purpose. (Para 1) |
| 2. understanding classification under excise chapters. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. burden of proof lies with revenue to classify vhg appropriately. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. distinction between skin care products and medicaments. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 5. primary function is determinant for product classification. (Para 13 , 14) |
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.33 under which the Revenue wants to cover VHG pertains to 'essential oils and resinoids; perfumery, c
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
