9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tobacco , a manufactured tobacco product, falling under item No. 4 II(5) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short). It is stated for the appellant that there is no addition of scent or any other ingredient. The lower authorities have held that the aforesaid processes resulted in the manufacture of chewing tobacco, and, on that basis, rejected the appellant s claim for refund of duty paid on clearance of such tobacco. 2. We have heard Shri P.S. Nagarathnam, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R., for the respondent. 3. Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, defines manufacture as including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. In relation t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject product. The department has not disputed this statement. We may also note that many Collectors have issued trade notices to the effect that cut tobacco which is apparently unmanufactured leaf merely cut and tied or held together with a string or ring bearing some sort of a brand label would not be treated as manufactured tobacco (Cochin Collector s Notice No.41/78, dated 4.2.1978; Baroda Collector s Notice No. 38/77, dated 31.10.1977; Pune Collector s Notice No.208/78, dated 23.11.1978, Madras Collector s Circular No.14/78, dated 27.12.1978). It is clear, therefore, that from the department s own point of view which, we consider proper, the appellant s product ought not be considered as chewing tobacco, a manufactured tobacco p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter a detailed consideration of the matter, the Tribunal held that the assessee s product was not taxable under Item No.4.II(5) of the Schedule, as chewing tobacco. 6. The above-referred-to decision, in our opinion, squarely applies to the facts of the present case as well. Accordingly, we hold that the product in the present appeal was also not taxable as chewing tobacco under Item No. 4 .11(5) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. 7. We find that the appellant had urged that the claim for refund was not governed by the limitation under Central Excise law but by the general law of limitation. On this, the lower authorities have not recorded any finding. Any finding on this contention may also entail an investigation into the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
