ORDER
G. Sankaran, President
1. The issue for determination in the present appeal is whether Bindi and Eye Brow Pencils manufactured by the respondents could be treated as preparations for the care of the skin and consequently be held to fall under Item No. 14F(i) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule of 1944. The Collector (Appeals), by the impugned order dated 6-11-1986, held that the goods did not fall under the said item and accordingly set aside the Assistant Collector’s order classifying them under the said item. It is this order which is now challenged in the instant appeal.
2. The subject goods had been approved for classification under Item No. 68 of the Tariff Schedule prior to 30-9-1981. However, while according approval to classification list No. 2/81 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had ordered the classification of the subject goods under Item No. 14F(i) with effect from 30-9-1981. The ground put forth in the instant appeal is that the Collector (Appeals) had erred in holding that only those products which were used for the care of the skin were classifiable under Item No. 14F(i). It is stated that the item covered not only preparations for the care of the skin but also preparations and substances used for beautification and attraction. Further there was specific mention of eye brow pencils in the tariff entry as it stood after the budget of 1985-86.
3. Item No. 14F(i) reads as follows:
“14F. Cosmetics and toilet preparations not containing alcohol or opium, Indian hemp or other narcotic drugs or narcotics, namely:
(i) Preparations for the care of the skin including beauty creams, vanishing creams, cold creams, make-up creams, cleansing creams, skin foods and tonics, face powders, baby powders, toilet powders, talcum powders and lipsticks”.
4. The Bench questioned Shri Narasimhamurthy, DR, as to how it could be said that bindi and eye brow pencils could be said to be preparations for the care of the skin. He could not offer any rational clarification but submitted that he would reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of appeal. We are of the opinion that the item in question covers only preparations for the care of the skin and nothing else. The inclusive definition also covers preparations which could be said to be for the care of the skin. However, bindi and eye brow pencils can by no stretch of imagination be said to be preparations for the care of the skin nor can it be that they belong to the categories brought into the scope of the tariff entry by the inclusion clause. Further, it is not the case of the Collector that eye brow pencils were covered by the tariff entry during the material time. His reliance, however, is on the tariff item as it stood after the 1985-86 budget when there was a drastic change in the entry itself which read as follows :
“14F. Cosmetics and Toilet Preparations not containing alcohol or opium, Indian Hemp or Other Narcotic Drugs or Narcotics, namely:
(i) Preparations for the care of the skin, beauty or make-up preparations and manicure or pedicure preparations, such as : beauty creams, vanishing creams, cold creams, make-up creams, cleansing creams, skin foods and skin tonics, face powders, baby powders, toilet powders, talcum powders and grease paints, lipsticks, eye-shadow and eye-brow pencils, nail polishes and varnishes, cuticle removers and other preparations for use in manicure or chiropody, sun-burn preventive preparations and sun-tan preparations, barrier creams to given protection against skin irritants, personal (body) deodorants, depilatories”.
It may be seen that the item covered not only preparations for the care of the skin but also beauty or make-up preparations and manicure or pedicure preparations. Moreover, eye brow pencils were specifically mentioned in the entry. In our opinion eye brow pencils came in for specifications because they were a beauty or make-up preparation and not because they were a preparation for the care of the skin.
5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal which we consequently dismiss.
