Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-04-13 other

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd

Bench: 2 — Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi

In Brief

The Supreme Court was divided on whether coconut oil in small consumer packages should be classified as edible coconut oil (Chapter 15, duty 8%) or as a hair preparation (Chapter 33, duty 16%). Justice Gogoi held that small-packaged coconut oil remains edible oil under Chapter 15, as the HSN nomenclature forms the basis of tariff classification and the product lacks the required labeling/specialization for hair-use classification. Justice Banumathi held that post-2005 amendments to Chapter Note 3 and Section Note 2 mandated classification as hair oil when goods are suitable for retail hair-use packaging, and that the Common Parlance Test supports viewing coconut oil as primarily a hair oil in most of India. The bench remained split with conflicting judgments.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Central Excise Tariff Classification Coconut Oil Hair Oil Trade & Commerce

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login