Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"........in interpreting statutes like the Excise Act the primary object of which is to raise Revenue and for which purpose various products are differently classified, resort should not be had to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms and expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those using the products."

He contended that the Commissioner has adjudicated the matter on the basis as to how the users are going to use the impugned products. He referred to the article by John Ellison in ''Cosmetics World News" in which he mentions about "beautician Shahnaz Hussain who sells her herbal products in London & Parts" and the Article in "Arab News" according to which "India's well known herbal beautician Shahnaz Hussain has cautioned Middle Eastern Women against the use of Western Synthetic Cosmetics" and it is mentioned that herbal Cosmetics are ideal for skin. The learned Advocate also mentioned that the customers of the impugned product treat them as cosmetics which is apparent from the Order dated 27.11.93 placed by Hotel Agra Ashok for "Shampoo Bottles packed in 8 ml" and not for medicine or from the Order placed by Hotel Chandela, Khajuraho which was for Daily Wash Shampoo, Moisturisers, Talcum Powder, Body Gel, Mouth Wash, Tooth Paste. He also highlighted the fact that for the purpose of Central Excise, the products are Ayurvedic medicines and for the purpose of exports they are cosmetics. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions in Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., 1996 (87) ELT 12 (SC) wherein it has been held that the expressions occurring in Central Excise Tariff should be understood in the sense in which the persons who deal in such goods understand it normally, and in the case of Chemical & Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (99) ELT 633 (SC) wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that when Tariff Entry uses commercial words, "We will have to examine that term in the light of how it is understood in the trade," The learned Advocate also relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Fusebase Elloto Ltd., 1993 (67) ELT 30 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that "The identity of an article is associated with its primary function and utility. The names of certain products have functional association in the mind of the consumers. There is a mental association in the mind of the consumer in respect of certain products keeping in view of the utility of the product and also the reputation the name of the product has acquired in the market and among the consumers." He contended that there is sufficient material brought on record to show that the impugned products are treated as cosmetics only by the consumers; that even in B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1997(58) ECC 96 (SC) : 1995 (77) ELT 485 (SC) the Supreme Court classified the product 'Selsun' on the basis of common and commercial parlance understanding of the product. 8.6 The learned Advocate for the Revenue mentioned that decision in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra is not applicable as the facts are different; that in the said decision it has been held that the product would be classified as medicament if it is known in common parlance as Ayurvedic medicine; that after considering the use of 'Himtaj Tel' which was on scalp and to be used only for a limited period and also the report of Chief Chemist and literature, the Tribunal came to the finding that Himtaj Tel was not for use as cosmetics but as medicine. He, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, 2002 (82) ECC 185 (LB) : 2002 (48) RLT 897 (CEGAT-LB), wherein the Tribunal has classified 'Dant Manjan Lal' containing ingredients mentioned in authoritative text book on Ayurveda under Heading 33.06 as a tooth powder. He also mentioned that the decision in Ishaan Research Laboratories case is not applicable as the said matter was decided on the basis of expert's report which had not been rebutted by the Revenue; that moreover products in the present appeals are different and there is no report specific to the impugned products. He, therefore, contended that the impugned products are Cosmetics and Toilet preparations under Chapter 33 of the Tariff.