1996 (6) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - By the present appeal the De partment has assailed the order of the Collector of Central Excise holding that `Sunghani Sahu' is classifiable under Chapter heading 3306.00 as a dentifrice. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent herein are engaged in the manufacture of the item described as `Sunghani Sahu'. On subjecting the product to chemical test .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Shri A.K. Madan, the learned SDR appearing for the appellant submits that the product is tobacco based and that similar product described as `Gul' was examined for classification by tariff conference and it was held that the similar product known as `gul' was classifiable under T.I. 2404.90 of the CETA. None appeared for the respondents. 4. H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... finding of the Collector Central Excise. On the contary, we find that while dealing with `Gul' there is a finding of the Conference that `gul' was not known as Dant Manjan in common parlance. Having regard to the fact that there is no evidence brought on record to prove that `gul' and `Sunghani Sahu' are identical products as also that no evidence has been produced by the department to rebut the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X