Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs SMA Trading Company (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT held that Axe Brand Universal Oil classifiable under Chapter 30 as it is similar to Amrutanjan, Vicks, Tiger Balm which were held to be classifiable under Chapter 30 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise – 1995 (77) ELT 500 (SC).
The issue that has to be decided is whether “Axe Brand Universal Oil” can be classified under Chapter 30 or Chapter 33. The ingredients of Axe oil are printed each side of the box of Axe oil. The active compositions of the oil are Pudhina ka Phool, Niligiri ka Tel, Gandhara tel, Karpoor. The relevant extract of the page from the Ayurvedic Pharmocopia has been produced by the respondent. It shows that pudhina has therapeutic use and is used in the treatment of JIRNA JVARA (fever), Sula, Agnimandhya etc. Similarly, Niligiri tel or eucalyptus has therapeutic properties and is used in treatment of sula, agnimandhya (digestive impairment), swasa (dyspnoea, astma) etc.
Similar goods in the nature of Amrutanjan, Vicks, Tiger Balm have been held to be classifiable under Chapter 30 as seen from the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. (supra) held as under:-
“We are concerned in this appeal against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal only with the appellant’s product known as “Amrutanjan Pain Balm Ayurvedic”. The appellants sought classification of the same on the basis that it was an ayurvedic medicament under Tariff Heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracted nil rate of duty. The authorities below as also the Tribunal did not accept this classification. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, upheld the contention of the Excise authorities that the balm was not an ayurvedic medicine because its main ingredients were Menthol IP, Camphor IP, Turpentine IP and Methyl Salicylate IP, which were of a synthetic nature. The contention of the appellants that the same ingredients had an ayurvedic nomenclature as could be found in authoritative text books was rejected because, according to the Tribunal, ayurvedic science recognises only the use of natural extracts from medicinal plants and these could not be substituted by modern chemical ingredients. The Tribunal said that the appellant had imported synthetic grade IP chemicals and had, with the intention of evading liability to excise duty, asked the suppliers to change the names upon invoices and labels to ayurvedic nomenclatures. Thus, methyl salicylate was changed to “pudina ka phool”, dementholised oil to “pudina ka tel”, thymol and turpentine to “ajwan ka phool” and “turpentine ka tel” and methyl salicylate to “winter green tel”. The Tribunal would appear to have overlooked the fact that the same article can have a use both in ayurvedic and in the western sciences and be known by different names. The letters IP after the article concerned only demonstrate that it is of pharmaceutical quality, as it ought to be if it is to be used in a medicinal preparation. The Tribunal was in error in considering that the articles afore-stated were synthetic in nature. Having regard to the evidence, we are inclined to hold that the articles afore-mentioned were articles known both to ayurvedic and western sciences and were refined for use in medicaments. Since they were known to ayurveda, their use in the making of the balm did not, by itself, make the balm a non-ayurvedic product.”
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
