9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 221 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Scent‟ - manufacture of Jayanti Jarda brand Chewing Tobacco - Appellants want to bring the product under the Central Excise Tariff Heading 24039910 which deals with Chewing Tobacco, but the Department wants to bring the same under Heading 24039930 which deals with the Zarda Scented Tobacco - Held that - relaince placed in the case of M/s. Flakes-N-Flavourz Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2014 (9) TMI 664 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) , where it was held that the description of the product is flavour chewing tobacco and it is bought and sold in the market as chewing tobacco, the product in question is chewing tobacco and classifiable under Heading 24039910 of the Tariff. The product classified as Chewing Tobacco‟ under Tariff Heading No. 24039910 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee-appellant.
Issues Involved:
Classification of "Scent" under Central Excise Tariff Heading 24039910 (Chewing Tobacco) or 24039930 (Zarda Scented Tobacco). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification Dispute - Chewing Tobacco vs. Zarda Scented Tobacco The appeal concerns the classification of a product labeled as "Scent" under the Central Excise Tariff. The assessee-Appellants argue for classification under Heading 24039910 for Chewing Tobacco, while the Department contends for classification under Heading 24039930 for Zarda Scented Tobacco. The dispute arises from the interpretation of the product's nature and ingredients. Issue 2: Historical Acceptance of Classification The appellant's counsel highlights the Department's past acceptance of the product as "Chewing Tobacco" and not "Zarda Scented Tobacco." The counsel emphasizes that the raw material's classification under different headings does not align with Zarda Scented Tobacco, supporting their argument based on past practices and precedents. Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Interpretation Legal precedents play a crucial role in the arguments presented. Reference is made to the Tribunal's decision in Urmin Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, emphasizing that the use of Zarda Scent is essential for classification as Zarda Scented Tobacco. Another case, Flakes-N-Flavourz vs. CCE, Chandigarh, underscores the importance of product description, common parlance, and established practice in classification. Issue 4: Superintendent's Rejection and Ruling The Superintendent's rejection of the assessee-Appellants' request to reclassify the product as Zarda Scented Tobacco is a pivotal point. The Superintendent's decision, based on production process and ingredients, aligns with the classification under Chewing Tobacco (Heading 24039910), rejecting the claim for Zarda Scented Tobacco (Heading 24039930). Issue 5: Tribunal's Decision and Ruling After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the record, the Tribunal overturns the impugned order. Citing the Superintendent's letter, past decisions, and legal precedents, the Tribunal classifies the product as "Chewing Tobacco" under Tariff Heading No. 24039910. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee-Appellants is allowed, setting aside the previous order. In conclusion, the judgment resolves the classification dispute by analyzing historical acceptance, legal precedents, official rejections, and ultimately classifying the product as "Chewing Tobacco." The decision underscores the significance of product nature, ingredients, past practices, and legal interpretations in determining the appropriate Central Excise Tariff classification.
|
