9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ram Bishamber Dass had filed Cross-Objections in both the appeals filed by the Revenue. In Appeal No. E/2752/91-D, the respondents M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. have also filed cross-objections. As in all these appeals and the cross-objections, the issues for our consideration are the same and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For M/s. Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Dena), Shri B.L. Sood, Advocate submitted that w.e.f. 1-4-1989, the Central Excise Tariff with regard to Heading No. 24.04 had been recast and a new sub-heading No. 2404.60 was inserted to cover the preparations containing snuffs of tobacco in any proportion. Before this changer-over, the snuff of tobacco w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative submitted that the goods even after addition of menthol continued to remain snuffs as in the case of snuffs the process of repacking and labelling amounted to the process of manufacture, the differential duty under the same sub-heading 2404.50 was correct. As regards the Tribunal s decision, he submitted that the facts have to be examined in the light of the Tribunal s decision and that the appeal has been filed in the Hon ble Supreme Court against the Tribunal s decision in the case of Lachman Dass Behari Lal (supra) and he is not aware whether any stay has been granted in this case by the Supreme Court. 4. At this stage, Shri Sood, Advocate submitted that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court. 5. Shri Harban Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate had brought to our notice that in the case of Lachman Dass Behari Lal v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 728 (Tribunal), the Tribunal had held that the process under the raw snuff was subjected to various processes and flavouring substances and menthol added to it before retail packing, the process amounts to `manufacture and that a new commodity known in the trade had come into existence. It was held by the majority decision that the classification of such new product under sub-heading No. 2404.60 was appropriate. Reference was made to Section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had followed this decision in one of the respondents own case in the case of Khetu Ram Bishamber Dass v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
