Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1321 - AT - Central ExciseIssues involved: Classification of product as 'Chewing Tobacco' or 'Jarda Scented Tobacco' under CETH : 2403 99 10 and CETH : 2403 99 30 respectively. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Facts: The dispute revolves around the classification of a product declared as 'Chewing Tobacco' by the Respondent under CETH : 2403 99 10 and as 'Jarda Scented Tobacco' under CETH : 2403 99 30 as claimed by the Appellant Revenue. The Respondent's product, branded as "GOPAL Chewing Tobacco," has been in production for almost six decades under various agreements. The Respondent established manufacturing units under the Compound Levy Scheme, and the duty liability was determined based on the type of tobacco product. 2. Show Cause Notice and Adjudication: The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging misclassification of the product as 'Chewing Tobacco' instead of 'Jarda Scented Tobacco.' The Commissioner adjudicated the matter and classified the product as 'Chewing Tobacco' under CETH 2403 99 10. Dissatisfied, the Department appealed to the Tribunal. 3. Basis of Classification by Commissioner: The Commissioner classified the product as 'Chewing Tobacco' based on various factors: - The Respondent consistently declared the product as 'Chewing Tobacco.' - The product had been in production and sale for a significant period. - The CRCL Test Report and lack of specifications for 'Jarda Scented Tobacco' were considered. - A previous Tribunal order favored the classification of a similar product as 'Chewing Tobacco.' 4. Legal Arguments and Supreme Court Decision: The Department argued that the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of dropping the demand. However, the Respondent highlighted that the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar appeal, upholding the classification as 'Chewing Tobacco.' 5. Tribunal's Decision and Rationale: After considering the arguments and reviewing the appeal records, the Tribunal found the issue to be settled by a previous Tribunal order upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue for chargeability, and in this case, no substantial evidence supported reclassification. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision. 6. Conclusion: The Tribunal, following the settled legal precedent, upheld the classification of the product as 'Chewing Tobacco' under CETH 2403 99 10. The appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the Respondent. The judgment was pronounced on 27.06.2024.
|