9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chewable Tobacco falling under Tariff Heading 2403 99 10 the appeal preferred by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh before the Hon ble Supreme Court has been dismissed in COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. AHMEDABAD VERSUS URMIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2023 (10) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT] and the order of the Tribunal has been upheld. Since the matter has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in favour of the Respondent, the present appeals filed by the Department are liable to be dismissed - the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri Vivek Kohli, Senior Advocate Shri Ashwini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted Tobacco were introduced for the first time. The duty liability fixed for the Chewing Tobacco on the basis of packing machines speed and in the case of Jarda Scented Tobacco no speed of packing machines fixed. The Respondent while filing the Declaration for the month of March April, 2015 classified its product, and accepted by the Department as Chewing Tobacco . 4. The Department on 05.05.2016 issued the Show Cause Notice on both units vide SCN NO. C.No. V(15) Adj./GZB/Shree Flavour/12/16- 17/2322-2326 and C.No. V(15) Adj./GZB/Shree Flavour/13/16- 17/2317-2321, wherein the Department alleged that the product of the Respondent was not Chewing Tobacco but classifiable as Jarda Scented Tobacco under the CETH 2403 99 30. The Commissioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 435 (Tri.-Del.)] as under: 48. In the Tariff the Expression chewing tobacco and zarda scented tobacco are not 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 flavor chewing tobacco and it is brought and sold in the market as chewing tobacco. Further the appellant from the beginning classifying the same as chewing tobacco and after the period in dispute also classified the same as chewing tobacco. Hence, I find merit in the contention of the appellant that the product in question is chewing tobacco and classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 and the Final Order No. A/53229/2014-EX (DB), dated 08.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal has been upheld. [2015 (327) ELT 435 (Tri.-Del.)]. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We find that the issue in the present appeal is no more res integra and is covered by the Final Order No.A/53229/2014-EX(DB) dated 08.08.2014 in the case of Shree Flavours LLP [2015 (327) ELT 435 (Tri.-Del.). Against the Final order of the Tribunal upholding the product to be Chewable Tobacco falling under Tariff Heading 2403 99 10 the appeal preferred by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh before the Hon ble Supreme Court has been dismissed vide order dated 23rd October, 2023 and the order of the Tribunal has been upheld as under:- 70. Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
