Freburz Pharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Freburz Pharma vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 05, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39594

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39594
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu
Decided On: Jul 05, 2005
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Freburz Pharma

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

2.(a) issue is classification of "jabkusum ayurvedic hair pack". the assessee seeking it under heading 3003.99 while revenue placing it under 3305.99 during the period oct. 1998 to jan. 1999.(b) the entity is claimed to cure dandruff, hair fall as shown in the literature and is mentioned in ayurvedic text books and is manufactured as per the procedure prescribed. the asst. collector orders are explicit on this aspect.(c) cce (a) however following t. no. 333/49/97-cx., dated 10-9-1997 and chapter note l(d) to chapter 30 upheld classification under chapter 33.(d) the id. advocate for the appellants relies on decision in case of cce v. arshik herbal remedies (india) - & meghdoot gramodyog seva sansthan - 2004 (174) e.l.t. 14 (s.c.) to submit that the product merits classification as a medicaments under chapter 30.(e) a perusal of the assistant collector's order and considering the settled law, we cannot find any fault in ac's order & we therefore cannot uphold the cce (a) order as we find no reason to set aside the ac's order on facts and or law settled.3. consequent to our findings, the order of cce(a) is set aside, the ac's order is restored and appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

2.(a) Issue is classification of "JABKUSUM AYURVEDIC HAIR PACK". The assessee seeking it under Heading 3003.99 while Revenue placing it under 3305.99 during the period Oct. 1998 to Jan. 1999.

(b) The entity is claimed to cure dandruff, hair fall as shown in the literature and is mentioned in Ayurvedic Text Books and is manufactured as per the procedure prescribed. The Asst. Collector orders are explicit on this aspect.

(c) CCE (A) however following T. No. 333/49/97-CX., dated 10-9-1997 and Chapter note l(d) to Chapter 30 upheld classification under Chapter 33.

(d) The Id. Advocate for the appellants relies on decision in case of CCE v. Arshik Herbal Remedies (India) - & Meghdoot Gramodyog Seva Sansthan - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) to submit that the product merits classification as a medicaments under Chapter 30.

(e) A perusal of the Assistant Collector's order and considering the settled law, we cannot find any fault in AC's order & we therefore cannot uphold the CCE (A) order as we find no reason to set aside the AC's order on facts and or law settled.

3. Consequent to our findings, the order of CCE(A) is set aside, the AC's order is restored and appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Freburz Pharma vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject MRTP Same Judge S T S.S., T Anjaneyulu