TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Delay condoned on 23.08.2023.
II. Classification of Products:In Commissioner Of Central Excise Ahmedabad v. M/S Urmin Products and Ors., the issue was whether the product should be classified under CET SH 2403 9910 as 'chewing tobacco' or under CET SH 2403 9930 as 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco'. The tribunal held in favor of the Assessee, classifying the product as 'chewing tobacco'. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the product should be classified as 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco' due to the ingredients and manufacturing process.
III. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:The tribunal's decision to not invoke the extended period of limitation was overturned by the Supreme Court, which held that the Assessee had willfully misclassified their product to evade duty, justifying the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the CE Act.
IV. Determination and Adjudication under Rule 6 of CTPM Rules:In M/S Dharampal Premchand Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Supreme Court clarified that the Competent Authority under Rule 6 of CTPM Rules has the power to determine the classification of the product. The declaration made under Rule 6 has a direct nexus to the classification of the product, and the Department is not precluded from issuing a Notice under Section 11A or 11AC of the CE Act if there is misdeclaration.
V. Burden of Proof in Classification Disputes:In Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/S. Flakes-N-Flavourz, the Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that the product is misclassified. The tribunal's decision to classify the product as 'chewing tobacco' was upheld as the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
VI. Application of Common Parlance Test:In Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Excise and Customs Bhopal v. Kaipan Masala Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the common parlance test for classification. The product was classified as 'chewing tobacco' based on its market understanding and consumer perception.
VII. Validity of Declarations under Rule 6:In Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Meerut v. M/S Som Pan Products Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that post facto declarations by the Assessee to change the classification of the product were invalid. The initial declaration classifying the product as 'zarda/jarda scented tobacco' was upheld.
VIII. Consistency of Departmental Stand:In Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Alwar v. Tara Chand Naresh Chand, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of consistency in the Department's stand. The tribunal's decision to classify the product as 'chewing tobacco' was upheld as the Department had earlier classified the same product under the same heading.
Order:(a) Civil Appeal Nos. 10159-10161 of 2010, Civil Appeal No. ........ of 2023 arising out of Diary No. 44912 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No....... of 2023 arising out of Dairy No. 6888 of 2020 are allowed.
(b) Civil Appeal No. 5146 of 2015, Civil Appeal No. 2469 of 2020 along with Civil Appeals arising out of Diary No. (s) 3492, 2810, 3484, 3513, 3536, 3544, 3545 and 3547 of 2020, Civil Appeal No. 3596 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. arising out of Diary No. 14581 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 959 of 2019 are dismissed.
(c) Civil Appeal No. of 2023 arising out of Diary No. 3487 of 2020 stands remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh.
(d) Costs made easy.
TaxTMI 