Manual Packing Excluded: Filter Khaini Pouches Notified Goods Case

The Tribunal upheld the decision that Filter Khaini Pouches manually packed into plastic pouches did not qualify as notified goods under the compounded levy scheme. The packing machines were excluded from annual capacity determination as the final packing was manual, aligning with the scheme's requirement for machine-packed pouches. The Tribunal affirmed that the product lacked marketability in its initial form and rejected the Revenue's appeals. The judgment clarified that manually packed pouches were not subject to the compounded levy scheme, and the packing machines were not considered for production capacity and duty calculation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Filter Khaini Pouches manufactured by the Respondents with the help of packing machines are to be considered as notified goods under Notification No.10/2010-CE(NT) dated 27.02.2010.
2. Whether these pouches should be taken into consideration while determining the annual capacity of production and collection of duty.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Filter Khaini Pouches manufactured by the Respondents with the help of packing machines are to be considered as notified goods under Notification No.10/2010-CE(NT) dated 27.02.2010:

The Tribunal examined the manufacturing process of Filter Khaini Pouches, noting that the pouches are initially packed using machines but are subsequently manually packed into larger plastic pouches. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced the Capacity Determining Rule 2010 and various notifications, particularly Notification No.26/2010 and Notification No.19/2010-CE dated 13.04.2010, which clarified the definition of "filter khaini." The explanation provided in these notifications indicated that "filter khaini" refers to chewing tobacco packed in sachets of filter paper or fabric before being packed in pouches with the aid of a packing machine. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the compounded levy scheme applies only to pouches packed with the aid of packing machines. Since the final packing into plastic pouches was done manually, the product did not fall under the compounded levy scheme.

2. Whether these pouches should be taken into consideration while determining the annual capacity of production and collection of duty:

The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the plastic pouches packed manually did not qualify as notified goods under the compounded levy scheme. The Deputy Commissioner had excluded the packing machines from the annual capacity determination since the final packing was manual. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this view, noting that the intent of the compounded levy scheme was to cover only those pouches packed entirely with the aid of packing machines. The Tribunal upheld this reasoning, emphasizing that the filter khaini sachets, which lacked branding, MRP, and health warnings, could not be considered marketable in their initial form. The final product, which included these details, was packed manually, thus not meeting the criteria for the compounded levy scheme.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions and rejected the Revenue's appeals. The final judgment affirmed that the manually packed plastic pouches did not fall under the compounded levy scheme, and the packing machines used for the initial packing of filter khaini sachets were not to be considered in determining the annual capacity of production and duty collection. The appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 17.6.2013.

---