Case Law Details
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai, in a ruling on June 17, 2025, sided with Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) regarding the classification of its petroleum jelly products, specifically Aloe Vera and Baby variants. The tribunal confirmed that these products are correctly classified under Customs Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 33049990, which pertains to skincare preparations.
This decision reiterates a previous ruling by the same bench (Final Order No. 40597/2025 dated June 9, 2025) concerning HUL’s similar products for a different period. The tribunal also noted a recent Supreme Court decision from April 30, 2024, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs Jindal Drugs Ltd. This precedent, which affirmed that even re-labelling constitutes “manufacture,” was cited as supporting the tribunal’s view in the HUL case. As a result, the appeal by HUL was allowed, with the previous order against the company being set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The only issue involved in this appeal is, “whether the appellant was correct in classifying the disputed Petroleum Jelly – Aloe Vera and Petroleum Jelly – Baby under CETH 33049990 ?”
2. The very same issue was considered in the appellant’s own case for a different period in Appeal No. E/40706/2017 vide Final Order No.40597/2025 dated 09.06.2025 this Bench has held in a detailed order that appellant’s classification of the products viz. Petroleum Jelly – Aloe Vera and Petroleum Jelly – Baby under CETH 33049990 is correct. In view of the above, the impugned order is required to be set aside which we hereby do and allow the appeal.
3. We also note that in a very recent decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs Jindal Drugs Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.1121 of 2016 dated 30.04.2024 has affirmed the view of the CESTAT that even the process of re-labelling would amount to “manufacture” which also supports our view.
4. In the result, the appeal stands allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 17.06.2025)
Author Bio
