1998 (2) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under sub-heading 2404.50 or 2404.60 of the Central Excise Tariff.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the correct classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The appeals involved the Revenue, M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd., and M/s. Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass, with cross-objections filed by the latter. The main contention was whether the goods should be classified under sub-heading 2404.50 or the newly inserted sub-heading 2404.60, which covered preparations containing snuffs of tobacco. The jurisdictional Collector initially agreed with the classification under 2404.60, but show cause notices were later issued for short payment of duty, claiming the correct classification was under 2404.50.

The representatives for M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. argued that post the Tariff change on 1-4-1989, their product fell under sub-heading 2404.60 due to the addition of menthol. They cited Tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their classification. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that even with the addition of menthol, the goods remained snuffs and the differential duty under 2404.50 was appropriate. The issue of whether the process of repacking and labeling constituted manufacture was crucial in determining the correct classification.

The Tribunal noted the changes in the Tariff and the addition of sub-heading 2404.60 specifically for preparations containing snuffs of tobacco. Manufacturers argued that their product, post-adding menthol, fell under this new sub-heading. Reference was made to Tribunal decisions in cases involving similar processes, where the majority held that the new product constituted manufacture and was appropriately classified under sub-heading 2404.60. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the process of manufacture in such cases to determine the correct classification.

It was highlighted that the Tribunal's decisions were crucial in these matters, as no contradictory decision was presented. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders-in-appeal and remanded the matters to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, for re-examination in light of the Tribunal's decisions. The manufacturers were to be given an opportunity to present their case, and appealable speaking orders were to be passed as per law. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were remanded for further review and decision in accordance with the Tribunal's rulings.