Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2015 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 250 - SC - Central ExciseClassification of Nizral as shampoo or hair medicament - Classification CSH 3003.10 or under CSH 3305.99 - Held that:- the product in question 'Nizral Shampoo' is classifiable under CSH 3003.10 and not CSH 3305.99 - product known as 'Nizral Shampoo' gives the nomenclature of the product as shampoo. However, the respondent claim that it is a patent or proprietary medicament as it's essential characteristics is therapeutic in nature. It is the common case of the counsel for the parties the pre-dominant use of the product in question is to be taken into consideration while deciding the classification issue. Therefore, it is to be determined as to whether the product in question is primarily used as a shampoo or it is used as a medicament. The use is suggested only on the advice of a Doctor and there is a suggestion that Doctor should be consulted for any further information. The respondent has also provided the literature/material showing that dandruff is a disorder which affects the hairy scalp. It is generally triggered by a single celled organism which is kind of fungus, with scientific name 'Pityrosporum Ovale'. For treatment of this disease, Nizral Shampoo 2% (i.e. shampoo containing 2% 'Ketoconazole') is shown as 'a new medicine' use whereof cures clears a dandruff. It is suggested that it should be used once a week and on other days, normal shampoos may be used which clearly shows that 'Nizral Shampoo' is to be used like a medicine, unlike other normal Shampoos. - In fact, notwithstanding the fact that the appellants have described the product as Selsun Shampoo, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, as noticed earlier, has classified the same as patent and proprietary medicine. Therefore, there is no force in the submission that the product must be equated with shampoo. - judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference - Decision in the case of B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodra [1995 (5) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided against Revenue.
|