Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand on Tobacco Products, Appellant's Classification Dispute

The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty on tobacco products manufactured by the appellant from June 2013 onwards. For the period January to May 2013, the issue was remanded to verify manufacturing activity. The appellant's product was classified under CETH 24039920, not covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the Review of Modification applications, emphasizing the settled legal position on reviewing final orders.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against the demand for duty on tobacco products, classification under CETH, installation dates of manufacturing machines, review of Final Order.

Analysis:

1. Demand for Duty on Tobacco Products:
The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty on tobacco products manufactured by the appellant. The demand was confirmed for the period from June 2013 onwards. However, for the period January to May 2013, the issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify if there was manufacturing activity in the factory. The appellant argued that what was being manufactured in the factory was not chewing tobacco falling under CETH 24039910 but a preparation containing chewing tobacco classified under CETH 24039920, not covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme.

2. Classification under CETH:
The appellant contended that their product was a preparation containing chewing tobacco, falling under CETH 24039920. They argued that the Compounded Levy Scheme did not apply to their product. The Tribunal was urged to consider this ground in the appeal, emphasizing the correct classification of the manufactured product.

3. Installation Dates of Manufacturing Machines:
The appellant claimed that the first machine was installed in June 2013, followed by the installation of a second machine two months later. They requested the Tribunal to remand the matter to verify if there was any manufacturing activity by the first machine from April to May 2013 and by the second machine from April to August 2013. This issue was crucial in determining the timeline and activity of the manufacturing process.

4. Review of Final Order:
The appellant filed Review of Modification (RoM) applications against the Final Order, pointing out errors and seeking rectification. However, the Tribunal noted that the Final Order was a detailed speaking order passed after careful consideration of all evidence and grounds raised by the appellant. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that RoM could not be entertained as it amounted to a review of the final order, which was impermissible in law. The Tribunal dismissed the RoM applications, emphasizing the settled legal position on the review of orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the RoM applications, finding no merit in the requests for modification of the Final Order. The judgment highlighted the importance of correct classification under CETH, the timeline of manufacturing activities, and the limitations on reviewing final orders based on legal precedents and principles.

---