9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods manufactured by the appellant being classifiable as Jarda Scented Tobacco [JST] covered by Tariff Entry 2403 9930 instead of as Chewing Tobacco [CT] covered by Tariff Entry 2403 9910. 2. The issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Apex Court by a recent decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad versus Urmin Products P. Ltd & Ors. - (2024) 133 GSTR 77, where the Apex Court considered the issue with reference to seven separate appellants and the appeal filed by the revenue against the appellant was considered at Sl. No.3. In the said decision, the Apex Court concluded that the assessee had mis-classified the goods from JST to CT for evading payment of higher duty. The issue was, therefore, decided against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly changed from 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco' to 'chewing tobacco'. 86. Hence, the assessee who had taken a stand by its communication dated 18.03.2015 was manufacturing 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco' changed its version and started contending the product manufactured by it is 'chewing tobacco'. The assessee was changing the classification of its product, as the central excise duty on 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco' and 'chewing tobacco' was changing. The view taken by adjudicating authority is based on factual evaluation which derives its support from the CRCL Report which confirmed that the samples drawn has the same ingredients as that of 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco' and thereby rightly confirmed the duty demanded under the Show Cause No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not contain added lime. Here, this fact becomes obvious that all the samples were of identical items and by the very existence of flavouring agent in them, the impugned manufactured item is nothing but Jarda Scented Tobacco. 40. It, therefore, makes amply clear that the noticee were manufacturing only scented jarda tobacco. The manufacturing process, they informed was actually of scented jarda tobacco only. But they were mis-leading the Department by purportedly classifying it under 'Chewing Tobacco or Scented Jarda Tobacco' whichever have lower rate of Central Excise Duty as per the statute, for the purpose of evading central excise duty." 4. In this context, it is also necessary to refer to the facts as noted in Urmin Products by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y mis-declared and misclassified their products with an intention to evade central excise duty. Hence an order dated 28.08.2015 came to be passed which covered the period of June 2015 to August 2015. In continuation of the same, four more orders for the period November 2015; December 2015; January 2016, and February 2016 came to be passed vide order dated 30.10.2015; 27.11.2015; 31.12.2015, and 29.01.2016 respectively demanding the amounts indicated therein. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee preferred appeal Nos. 338 of 2015, 53 of 2016, 52 of 2016, 209 of 2016 and 210 of 2016 before the Commissioner (Appeals), which came to be disposed of by order dated 23.10.2017 on the ground that a notice under Section 11A of the CE Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dispute. Infact the appeal before the Apex Court and the present appeal precisely arise from the same set of facts. 6. Before parting with the said order, we feel that it is relevant to take note of the written submissions made by the appellant, interalia stating that the show cause notice dated February 2, 2016 as well as the impugned order dated July 16, 2018, was a sequitur to the order dated August 28, 2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-1, Bhopal, whereby in the guise of determining the production capacity of the appellant in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 decided the issue of classification by holding that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) dated October 23, 2017 stands, which categorically noted that the second portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner calculating the duty liability under Rule 7 is not maintainable. The process of adjudication is set in motion by issuance of the show cause notice under Section 11A for determination and confirmation of the duty payable. Accordingly, liberty was granted to the appellant to raise all the grounds before the Adjudicating Authority in the proceedings initiated by the SCN dated February 2, 2016 and which has now been done by the impugned order. 8. The appellant having failed to discharge the duty liability on the goods manufactured by them as JST, they are liable to pay interest on the duty amount, which is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
