9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent : Sh. R.K. Mishra, DR ORDER Per Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Original No. ALW-EXCUS-000-COM-014-17-18 dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Alwar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the asseessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of "Jayanti Jarda brand C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . which was declared under Heading 3302.9011 and 3302.9012, which is not attracting the "Zarda Scented Tobacco‟. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Tribunal in the case of Urmin Products Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, Ahmedabad, 2010 (256) ELT 597 (T-Ahd.), has observed that : "16........The appellant never used the Zarda Scent. He drew our attention to the price list of M/s. Gupta & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "48. In the Tariff the expression chewing tobacco and zarda scented tobacco are no defined as the product has to be classified based upon the description of the product given by the manufacturer on the pouch as well as on the basis of common parlance and established practice. In the present case, as the product in question as per the description of the product is flavour chewing tobacco and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by changing the CETSH of their final product from 24039910 (Chewing Tobacco) to 24039930 (Jarda Scented Tobacco), it is submitted that looking to the production process/ingredients the product is already correctly classified under CETSH 24039910 and does not merit classification under the CETSH 24039930, as claimed by the assessee." 7. By following Tribunal‟s order (supra) and the above men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
