Laboratory test reports controlled tariff classification, and the goods were treated as chewing tobacco with refund and interest granted.

Recognised laboratory test reports prevailed over a departmental presumption that the goods contained scent, so the products were classified as chewing tobacco under Heading 24039910 and not as jarda scented tobacco under Heading 24039930. On that revised classification, the appellant was also found entitled to refund with consequential benefit and interest, with the Tribunal directing grant of the refund and applying the same treatment as in the comparable matter. The impugned classification and refusal of refund were therefore set aside in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the products manufactured by the appellant were classifiable as chewing tobacco under Heading No. 24039910 or as jarda scented tobacco under Heading No. 24039930 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to refund with consequential benefit and interest.

Issue (i): Whether the products manufactured by the appellant were classifiable as chewing tobacco under Heading No. 24039910 or as jarda scented tobacco under Heading No. 24039930 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the CRCL test reports, which described the samples as brown coloured powder mainly composed of tobacco and lime. The departmental view that the goods contained scent was treated as a presumption unsupported by any factual basis. The recognised laboratory reports were accepted as the proper basis for classification, and the earlier decision of the Tribunal on a similar issue was followed.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be chewing tobacco classifiable under Heading No. 24039910 and not jarda scented tobacco under Heading No. 24039930.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to refund with consequential benefit and interest.

Analysis: Once the classification issue was decided in favour of the appellant, the same treatment granted in the similar matter was held applicable. The Tribunal directed grant of refund within a stipulated time and awarded appropriate interest.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to refund with consequential benefit and interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, and the impugned classification and denial of refund were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recognised laboratory test reports support classification and the contrary departmental view rests only on presumption, the goods must be classified on the basis of the test evidence, with consequential refund and interest following the revised classification.

---