Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2003 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (10) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Issues: Classification of Shaheen Misri and Kokan Misri under Tariff Entry 2401.90 or 2404.90

Classification Issue:
The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of Shaheen Misri and Kokan Misri manufactured by the appellants. The department classified the product under Tariff Entry 2401.90, while the appellant argued that it should be classified under Tariff Entry 2404.90.

Detailed Analysis - Classification Issue:
The product in question is made by heating tobacco dust and rawa to remove moisture content, adding salt, and then subjecting it to roasting and grinding processes. The Commissioner (Appeals) based their decision on a previous order classifying similar products under Heading 2404.90. The Revenue contended that the tobacco dust used in the product is unmanufactured tobacco falling under 2401.90. However, the Tribunal disagreed, pointing out that Tariff Entry 24.04 covers other manufactured tobacco, including cut tobacco, along with smoking mixtures and their preparations. Given that cut tobacco can be considered manufactured tobacco, the product made by the appellants from tobacco dust through roasting and grinding processes can also be classified under 2404.90. This interpretation aligns with previous decisions by Commissioners (Appeals) in similar cases, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of Shaheen Misri and Kokan Misri under Tariff Entry 2404.90, emphasizing that the product, manufactured from tobacco dust through specific processes, falls within the scope of manufactured tobacco covered by this entry. The decision was based on a holistic interpretation of the relevant tariff entries and consistent precedents set by previous orders, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's argument regarding the classification under Tariff Entry 2401.90.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates