1980 (2) TMI 260 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Collector grants appeal for unbranded cigarillos, citing absence of branding, overturning excise duty classification.

In Re : M/s. KAILAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AURANGABAD

In Re : M/s. KAILAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AURANGABAD - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 732 (App. Coll. Bom.) Issues: Classification of unbranded cigarillos as branded for excise duty purposesDetailed Analysis:1. Facts of the Case: The appellants, manufacturers of cigarillos, submitted classification lists claiming exemption for unbranded products under specific notifications. A show cause notice was issued questioning the classification of unbranded cigarillos as branded.2. Lower Authority's Decision: The lower authority held that the unbranded cigarillos were actually branded based on the manufacturer's name on the container. Consequently, excise duty was levied on these products.3. Grounds of Appeal: The appellants contended that the lower authority misinterpreted the relevant notification, failed to consider trade practices, and did not assess individual units for branding. They argued that unbranded products were sold without any brand indication.4. Appellant's Arguments: The appellants highlighted that unbranded products were sold loose without any brand indication, unlike branded ones. They emphasized that the outer packing did not equate to branding, and the manufacturer's name was a legal requirement, not indicative of branding.5. Legal Provisions: The appellants cited Section 39(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and relevant Central Excise Tariff provisions to support their claim for exemption under specific notifications.6. Judicial Precedent: Reference was made to a judgment by the Madras High Court in a similar matter, where the court allowed the appeal based on the absence of distinct branding on the products.7. Collector's Decision: After reviewing the case records and submissions, the Collector noted that the unbranded cigarillos lacked any branding indication on individual units. Considering the legal requirements and trade practices, the appeal was allowed, granting the benefit of the relevant notifications to the appellants.8. Conclusion: The Collector allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants and granting them the benefit of specific notifications for unbranded cigarillos, based on the absence of branding indications on the products as per legal provisions and trade practices.This detailed analysis outlines the classification dispute regarding unbranded cigarillos and the legal considerations leading to the Collector's decision to allow the appeal and grant relief to the appellants.