TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts of the respondents under sub-heading 2404.41 of the CETA. Since in all these appeals common issue regarding classification of tobacco branded as "Hari Chhap and Bandar Dholak Chhap" prepared by the respondents and consequential demand for duty, is involved, these are being disposed of by a common order. 2.The respondents are dealing in the preparation and sale of branded chewing tobacco known as "Hari Chhap and Bandar Chhap". They are holding the Central Excise registration licence. They filed classification lists classifying their product under sub-heading 2401.00 of the CETA and during the period in question from 29-8-1992 to 15-3-1995, respondents M/s. Ravindra Co. cleared the goods under that sub-heading which carried nil rate of duty at that time. The Assistant Commissioner initially vide order dated 9-10-1990 also accepted their classification under sub-heading 2401.00 of the CETA, but subsequently doubt arose in his mind about the classification and he directed the Range Superintendent to allow clearances under provisional assessment against bond and to draw representative samples. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner classified their goods as manufactured tobacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .41 of the CETA, as desired by the Revenue. Therefore, it would be beneficial to set out both these sub-headings of the CETA as these were, at the relevant time : 24.01 2401.00 Un-manufactured tobacco; tobacco effuse …………………… 24.04 Other manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes; homogenized of 'reconstituted' tobacco; tobacco extracts and essences. Chewing tobacco including preparations commonly known as 'Khara masala', 'Kimam', 'Dokta', 'Zarda', 'Sukha' and 'Surti'. 2404.41 Bearing a brand name 7.The perusal of both these sub-headings shows that sub-heading 2401.00 covers unmanufactured while the other sub-heading 2404.41 applies to the manufactured tobacco. Therefore, if the goods "Bandar Dholak Chhap and Hari Chhap" tobacco, are accepted to be unmanufactured, then the same would be covered by sub-heading 2401.00 but otherwise if found to be manufactured, then would be classifiable under sub-heading 2404.41 of the CETA. The expression "manufactured" or "unmanufactured" tobacco had not been defined in the Chapter note or in the Section Note of Chapter 24 of the CETA. Therefore, reference w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, dated 23-6-1987 and Kanpur Collectorate Trade Notice No. 136 of August 1987 wherein it has been clarified that unmanufactured tobacco merely broken by beating, crushing and sieving packed in retail packets with or without brand names for consumption as chewing tobacco which are commonly known as in the market as Zarda, would be appropriately classifiable under Heading 24.01 of the schedule to the CETA. The Revenue is undoubtedly bound by this circular and trade notice and cannot be permitted to take contrary stand. In this context, reference may be made to Paper Product Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) = 1999 (34) RLT 365 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has so ruled. Therefore, by virtue of this circular and trade notice, the tobacco prepared by the respondents is classifiable under sub-heading 2401.00 of the CETA. 11.Even the Tribunal in number of cases has taken consistent view that cutting of unmanufactured tobacco leaves into small pieces, labelling with strings and packing in containers without adding any foreign ingredient, did not amount to manufacture, and would be classifiable under sub-heading 2401.00 of CETA as unmanufactured tobacco. In this context, referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision and so far as fresh decision had been given against the respondents. Therefore, the above said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which order in original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 31-12-1991 merged in respect of classification of the product in question, is of no avail to the Revenue. The matter regarding that order is also no longer pending before the CEGAT. Therefore, no illegality can be said to had been committed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by passing the impugned orders in favour of the respondents regarding classification of the goods on the basis of the material on record under sub-heading 2401.00 of CETA. 13.Moreover, the test report of the Chemical Examiner, on the basis of which order in original dated 31-12-1991 was passed by the Assistant Collector and then endorsed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 14-3-1996 related to the samples of the tobacco, drawn from the then lots, on 17-10-1990 and was relevant only for deciding the classification of those lots from which samples were drawn. That report became ineffective/irrelevant when fresh samples of the tobacco were taken subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
