Classification of seized tobacco material required fresh determination before excise liability could be fixed, with disclosure of relied-upon documents.

Excise liability over seized tobacco material depended on its exact classification, because duty could arise only if the goods were tobacco dust or tobacco powder obtained by crushing tobacco leaves. The Collector's finding was not specific enough, and the record did not establish whether the material resulted from deliberate crushing or from bidi patti manufacture. Before any fresh adjudication, the petitioner was also entitled to the Assistant Collector's report and the documents relied upon in the show cause notice. The matter was therefore remanded for a fresh determination of the material's nature and consequent duty liability after disclosure of those documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter required remand for a fresh determination of the exact nature and classification of the seized tobacco material, and whether the petitioner was entitled to copies of the report and relied-upon documents before further adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the true nature of the seized material, since excise liability depended first on whether it was tobacco dust or tobacco powder obtained by crushing tobacco leaves. The finding recorded by the Collector was not specific, and the material on record did not show a firm determination on whether the goods arose from deliberate crushing or during bidi patti manufacture. The petitioner was also entitled to receive the Assistant Collector's report and the documents relied upon in the show cause notice before any fresh decision was taken.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Collector, Central Excise and Customs for first determining the exact nature of the seized item and then deciding duty liability, after supplying the petitioner with the Assistant Collector's report and the relied-upon documents.

---