ORDER
S.S. Sekhon (T), Member
1. After hearing both sides and considering that the issue of classification, of entity termed as ‘Clinic Plus Coconut Hair Oil’ & ‘Clinic All Clear Dandruff Hair Oil’ which the appellant wants to be classified under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Schedule heading 33.0570 & the Revenue in classifying under 330599 is well settled by the Tribunals decision in the case of AMIT AYURVEDIC & COSMETICS PRODUCTS (I) PVT LTD v. CCE Surat-II (2004 (168) ELT 354 Tri-Delhi) classification under heading 330510 is to be upheld since the entities have the same constituents viz. Coconut Hair, Petroleum Pareffin, Perfume & Dandruff eradicating Chemicals & also the same and use.
2. The learned DRs valiant attempts to differentiate, by pointing out to certain other ingredients, listed, will not materially change the entity as understood & its classification. The finding of the Tribunal based on the constituents being Coconut Oil with added Perfumes giving it an identity of ‘Perfumed Hair Oil’ cannot be shaken by a submission that a person going to a shop for Perfumed Hair Oil will not opt for Dandruff removal product as in this case and reliance on common parlance understanding as held by the Apex Court in Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd (2003 (158) ELT 257 SC. The case of Mullar & Phipps (India) Ltd 2004 (167) ELT 374 SC by the Ld DR and submission that the FDA authorities have registered the products in a certain menu under their Act will not alter the classification for Perfumed Hair Oil being arrived under the Central Excise Tariff. The case of Subhash Chandar shaker (1979 (4) ELT 212 Bom), & reliance on the same by the DR and the marks on the package as ‘Anti Dandruff Agent’ will not induce us to conclude that the product be shifted from the category of ‘Perfumed Hair Oils’. The Dandruff cure is a secondary function & by appreciation of chapter notes the entity would remain classified as Perfumed Hair Oil, Subhas Chandrashaker case under the erst while Central Excise Tariff was arrived sans the chapter notes which under the 1985 tariff are very relevant to apply and cannot be ignored.
3. In view of the findings, we find no reason to differ with the classification arrived at by the bench in the AMIT AYURVEDIC & COSMETICS PRODUCTS (I) LTD case (2004 (168) ELT 354). We confirm the classification under 3305.10 & set aside the orders and allow these appeals without giving into the other goods taken.
(Pronounced in Court)