TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion list filed by them with effect from 1-4-1990 claiming classification of the goods under sub-heading 2404.60 as preparations containing snuff of tobacco in any proportion. The appellants contention was that the new sub-heading 2404.60 was created in the Tariff in 1990 specifically to cover preparations containing snuff of tobacco. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the classification as snuff of tobacco under sub-heading 2404.50 and changed the approved classification accordingly, by his order dated 14-9-1990. The appeal against this order was disposed of by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi by the impugned order dated 7-3-1991 holding that the Assistant Collector has no power of reviewing his own order but that under Sec. 11A of Central Excises Salt Act such power was inherent. He, further, observed certain mistakes in calculation of duty for the Assistant Collector to verify and rejected all other contentions in the appeal. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in his further order dated 24-10-1991 in pursuance of the Collector (Appeals) order, again confirmed the demand for duty and this order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) by the other im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in the case of Plasmac Machine v. Collector of Central Excise - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 161 was cited. It was also urged that the Bombay High Court in the case of S. Narendra Kumar v. Collector of Customs (Bombay) - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 466 (Bom.) = 1992 (37) E.C.C. 54 held that milk masala fell outside Chapter 8 of CTA which supports the case of the appellants. Similarly, in the case of Reckitt Colman v. Collector of Central Excise - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 216, it has been held that the prepared product is a new and different product. So also in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu - A.I.R. 1976 1437 (SC), it was held that fertilizer mixture is not the same as the ingredients composing it and is a new product different from the ingredients composing it. In respect of appeal No. E/A. No. 5335/91-D, it was submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has partially set aside Assistant Collector s order and it was further urged that an approved classification list can be modified only prospectively for which reliance was placed on the case law reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 110 (T) - Chandra s Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise. 4. Shri Jayanarayan Nair, Ld. D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... colouring, oil mixing and sieving, the resultant is the snuff of tobacco and the same is classified under 2404.50. Thus snuff of tobacco has to undergo further processing like adding perfumes and menthol and mixing of the resultant matter properly and sieving the same. It is later packed in different sizes and labelled according to the quality produced . . . . This preparation containing snuff is entirely different from snuff of tobacco falling under sub-heading 2404.50 in as much as the smell of tobacco is subdued by the ingredients added as aforesaid . . . . It is an admitted position that the produce is 100% snuff tobacco. When such is the case, the mere treatment thereof and addition of menthol and perfume cannot be said to be sufficient to change the product into a preparation containing snuff of tobacco because the product which is 100% snuff of tobacco retains its essential character as such and, therefore, continues to be snuff of tobacco. That the treatment and addition of perfume and menthol to the snuff of tobacco serve to bring it into a state in which it is fit for human consumption is not material for its classification under sub-heading 2404.50. No doubt, Note 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Press Industries v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 is also of relevance in this context. The appellants, therein, were manufacturing pipe fittings such as elbows, bends, and reducers out of steel tubes which they cut into different sizes shape them and turn them into pipe fittings. The question was whether these pipe fittings so produced also fall under Item 26AA(iv) C.E.T. covering pipes and tubes all sorts, or whether they should be classified under Item 68 C.E.T. covering goods not elsewhere specified. The appellants, therein, claimed that the products are nothing but pipes and tubes which retained their original character. The Supreme Court held that the pipe fittings are only species of pipes tubes. It was observed as follows : As explained above, the goods described in the tariff, namely, pipes and tubes are designed to meet various types of requirements. Normally pipes and tubes are produced as long and straight pieces. But by themselves they cannot fulfil all the needs or the end-use for which they are intended. To get the maximum use out of the pipes and tubes, it is necessary not only to produce long and straight pipes and tubes but also to turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-paid raw snuff and before it is repacked, it undergoes various processes of curing, pulverising where mixing, grinding and seiving takes place and the product is added with flavouring substances, perfumes, menthol and then it is sold by a distinct brand name and marketed as a preparation of snuff of tobacco. The value of the product also Sgoes up and it is higher than the raw snuff as several ingredients have gone into it. It is like Vaselene (petroleum jelly) added with several ingredients like menthol, camphor, niligiritel and then the product becomes a different one and marketed as a pain balm. Such a product cannot be again called as Vaselene. 10. In the case of Ajanta Marble Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1991 (53) E.L.T. 457], the process of crushing, grinding and seiving of limestone to obtain limestone chips and powder has been held to be manufacture and the resultant items lime stone chips and powder as different goods. Even in this case, preparation of snuff of tobacco powder has arisen after several processes of manufacture and only after addition of several ingredients. Therefore, the resultant product cannot be said to be same as raw snuff. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nature of processes of manufacture, bringing into existence a product commercially different from snuff of tobacco, will be classifiable under sub-heading 2404.60 as a preparation containing snuff of tobacco in any proportion, as held by Hon ble Member (Judicial) Date : 21-4-1992 Sd/- S.L. Peeran Member (J) Sd/- K.S. Venkataramani Member (T) The point of difference are referred to Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President. Date 23-4-1992 Sd/- Harish Chander President [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - This matter has been referred to me by the Hon ble President as third Member with reference to difference of opinion between the two Members on the following point : Whether snuff of tobacco, in spite of the processes to which it is subjected to at the hands of the appellants, remains snuff of tobacco classifiable under sub-heading 2404.50 C.E.T.A., 1985 as held by Member (Technical); or Whether the final product emerging as a result of these processes which, being in the nature of processes of manufacture, bringing into existence a product commercially different from snuff of tobacco, will be classifiable under sub-heading 2404.60 as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer. Therefore, adoption of any treatment which would render the product marketable to the consumer is crucial. Again, in the instant case the snuff is not only repacked from bulk packs but after being subjected to processing, through which it undergoes various treatments, it is rendered marketable in a different form. 20. In the circumstances of the case, therefore the fact that the major constituents of the product is snuff and other materials added for flavouring the substance i.e. perfumes and menthols etc. are in small proportions, has to be viewed in the context of the fact that this processing and adding of flavours, perfumes etc. has converted raw snuff into a new product which is marketed as a preparation of snuff and is known to the trade as such. Further Heading 2404.60 significantly refers to the item as a preparation containing snuff in any proportion. Hence, I agree with the views expressed by Hon ble Member (J). 21. The matter is therefore, returned to the original Bench for passing final order. Date : 17-2-1994 Sd/- S.K. Bhatnagar Vice President In view of the majority op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
