Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 79 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - chewing tobacco - Zarda - classified under Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading as 24039910 and under Central Excise Tariff Heading 24039930 respectively or otherwise - the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the declaration of the assessee without making any efforts to find out as to what exactly was being manufactured by the appellant. If the Deputy Commissioner did not approve the declaration filed by the assessee, he was under obligation to make enquiries including physical verification in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Chewing Tobacco Rules, 2010. - whether the product being manufactured by the appellant was chewing tobacco or Jarda scented tobacco? Held that:- Admittedly in the present case the appellants have marketed their product as chewing tobacco and not as Jarda scented tobacco - Revenue has neither disputed the manufacturing process undertaken by the appellant which shows non-use of any scent or perfume in the product nor have made any enquiries from the dealers, shopkeepers or the ultimate consumers of the product. No evidence of procurement of Perfume or Scent as raw material and then use in the product stands produced by the Revenue. No employee of the assessee was examined so as to establish that perfume being used for manufacture of their final product. As such the said factor of marketing of the goods as chewing tobacco leads us to inevitable conclusion apart from other reasons as discussed above, that the product in question is admittedly chewing tobacco and not Jarda scented tobacco. An identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal decision in the case of Urmin Products Pvt.Ltd. v. Commisioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2010 (3) TMI 461 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], where it was held that both sides not clearly shown whether product Chewing Tobacco or Zarda Scented Tobacco. Label calls the product as Flavoured Chewing Tobacco, no Zarda Scent having been added and not sold as Zarda Scented Tobbaco, appellant’s claim that the product is Flavoured is Chewing Tobbaco has to be accepted. The ratio of the said decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We also note that the appellant’s request for getting the sample drawn and tested by CRCL was not accepted by the Revenue and in the absence of any such test reports or expert’s opinion, the Revenue’s endeavour to hold that the goods being manufactured by the appellant are not chewing tobacco, but Jarda scented tobacco cannot be appreciated. No reason stands advanced by the Revenue for not accepting the appellant’s request and get the samples tested for finding out the exact nature of the product. Appeal allowed.
|