Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - DelhiGrove Products (Far East) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 11 October, 1983Equivalent citations: 1983ECR2140D(TRI.-DELHI), 1983(14)ELT2402(TRI-DEL)ORDER
 

 G. Sankaran, Member (T)1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2.  The appeal  was   listed   for  hearing  on   10-10-1983.    However, in response to the notice of hearing the appellants sent a communication dated 26-9-1983   saying that they would   not be appearing for   the hearing and requesting that the Tribunal may dispose of the matter on the basis of the submissions in the appeal.   We, therefore, propose to dispose of the matter with the assistance of the Senior Departmental Representative.3.  The appellants are manufacturers of Cosmetics and Toilet preparations falling under Item 14F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET).    In actual practice, they do not manufacture the goods in a factory of their own, but get them manufactured, as loan licensees, in a factory belonging to another party. One of the products was "MUM" deodorant in 15 gms. and 30 gms. packing. Initially, the Central Excise authorities held that MUM did not fall under Item 14F CET.    Later, they seem to have considered that the product did fall under Item 14F.    Consequently, they issued on 21-6-1976 a short-levy notice under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise  Rules, 1944 demanding a sum of Rs. 16,075.29 on account of duty leviable on the MUM cleared during the period 17-7-1975 to  19-8-1975.   After holding adjudication proceedings, the Asstt. Collector held that MUM deodorant was a preparation for the care of the skin and confirmed the  demand.    The appeal against this order did not meet with success.4.  The only question  falling for decision is whether MUM deodorant is a preparation for care of the  skin falling under Item No. 14F GET.   The appellants contend that the only purpose of the preparation is to prevent proliferation   of  bacteria   by   perspiration   and   thereby prevent bad odour. There is no caring  of the skin  involved in this.   Another point taken is that demand is barred by limitation, though no reasons have been adduced in support of this point.5.  In the hearing on  10-10-1983, the learned Sr. DR has cited several technical  authorities  in  support of the decision  of the lower authorities. First, he referred to the book "COSMETICS-SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY" edited   by  Edward  Segarin published by Inter Science Publishers, New York. On page 11, it is stated that the types of cosmetic preparations and treatments available  in the earliest centuries of the  Christian era included, among other things, deodorants under the head "For care of the skin".    On page 735, it is stated that a deodorant cream  serves to  absorb odorous materials from the skin  surface  and  prevent subsequent  development of odour by inclusion of anti-bacterial   ingredients.    On   page   1016,   deodorants    are   listed   under "Cosmetic emulsions".In "HARRY's Cosmeticology" by Ralph G. Harry (Leonard Hill Books of U.S.) which is a treatise on the principles and practice of modern cosmetics there is a whole chapter devoted to deodorants and anti-perspirants.Shri Jain also referred to a book "Manufacture of Beauty Products" published by Small Business Publications, Delhi. In the Chapter on "Systemic Skin Preparations" is listed deodorants.6.  From the  above authorities,  it may be seen that there is little doubt that deodorants are cosmetic preparations for care of the skin.   The appellants have not adduced any evidence in support  of their stand.    As such, we uphold the classification of MUM Deodorant adopted by the lower authorities.7.  The contention regarding the demand for duty being hit by time-bar has also no force.   Firstly, it is seen from the Asstt. Collector's order that he has given due allowance for the limitation aspect.   Secondly, the appellants have not adduced any basis for their contention,8.  In the result the orders of the lower authorities are upheld and the appeal its rejected.