2006 (7) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... visited by the officers of the Anti-Evasion and after conducting investigations the officers concluded that the product manufactured by them was 'loose unbranded scented tobacco' which is rightly classified under Ch.2404.40 as chewing tobacco and preparation containing chewing tobacco. They were accordingly issued a Show Cause Notice demanding duty amounting to Rs. 1, 35,525/- and seeking imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated wherein the duty was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed under Rule. 173Q (1) by the Commissioner. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the Show Cause Notice suffers an ambiguity of describing the correct status of the product i.e. whether it is chewing tobacco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd further that since quimam and perfume brings about an irreversible change, it demonstrates that raw tobacco is no longer an unprocessed product to be categorized as un-manufactured tobacco as .claimed by appellant. The learned advocate submits that the Department in the Show Cause Notice has acknowledged that quimam and perfume are the only two ingredients which are manually applied in meagre doses to raw tobacco patti. It is also admitted that quimam itself is tobacco extract and its application upgrades tobacco taste and smell. In other words, application of quimam helps in restoration of tobacco smell during its storage before its use in other product i.e. say gutka as popularly referred to. For the product to be taken as preparati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Excise Tariff. It was therefore submitted that Commissioner's Order is correct and should be upheld. 4. Shri T. Gunasekharan, Advocate for the Appellants, on the other hand, submits that the Supreme Court Order relates to the classification of quimam and not of raw tobacco treated with quimam and therefore is not applicable to their case. 5. We have considered the submissions. We find that identical product has been considered by the tribunal in the case of Yogesh Associates cited supra wherein it was held that raw tobacco treated with quimam and perfumes will be classifiable under Heading 2401.10 and not 2404.40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Gopal Zarda Udyog is not applicable as it relates to classific .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X