9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p Tobacco", and "Bandar Dholak Chhap Tobacco". In this writ petition, we are concerned with the latter two. The dispute is whether the Tobacco sold by the petitioner under the above brand names is a manufactured tobacco or is it unmanufactured tobacco? The petitioner says that under trade notice No.136/1987, it was notified by the Central Excise Collector, Kanpur that - "un-manufactured tobacco merely broken by beating and then sieved and packed in retail packets with or without brand names for consumption as chewing tobacco which may be commonly known in the market as Zarda would be appropriately classified under Heading No. 24.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 as un-manufactured tobacco." In pursuance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce provisionally till further orders." (This order appear to be dated 23-10-1990 as per the date put in the signature of the Asstt. Collector)." It is then stated by the petitioner that without giving any further notice to him, the impugned order dated 6-12-1990 was communicated to him. It should be appropriate to set out the said order in its entirety. "Discreet enquiries were made to ascertain as id whether your products 'Hari Chhap Tobacco' and 'Bandar Dholak Chhap Tobacco' are un-manufactured Branded Chewing tobacco or manufactured Branded Chewing tobacco and it is found that your products 'Hari Chhap Tobacco' and Bandar Dholak Chhap Tobacco' were manufactured Branded Chewing Tobacco and fall under Chapter sub-heading No. 2404.41 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner, as the case may be. It is also submitted that the report of the Chemical Examiner, if any, has also not been communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had no opportunity of showing cause against the said classification. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Central Government that the impugned order is an appealable order and there is no reason why the petitioner should not be relegated to the said remedy. It is also submitted that the order is based upon the report of the Chemical Examiner to which no tenable objection can be raised. 5. In the ordinary course, we would have relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal but we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
