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 <h1>Supreme Court Overturns Tribunal Decision on Tobacco Classification, Emphasizes Need for Uniformity</h1> <h3>DAMODAR J. MALPANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> DAMODAR J. MALPANI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 483 (SC), 2004 (12) SCC 70, 2002 (8) JT 376 Issues involved:Classification of chewing tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.04 as 'Manufactured tobacco' instead of Tariff Heading 24.01 as 'Unmanufactured tobacco'.Detailed Analysis:The appellants challenged the Tribunal's decision upholding the classification of their product under Tariff Heading 24.04 as 'Manufactured tobacco' instead of Tariff Heading 24.01 as 'Unmanufactured tobacco'. The appellants contended that their chewing tobacco product should be classified similarly to another manufacturer's product, 'Karta Chhap Zarda', which was classified under unmanufactured tobacco. The process and composition of chewing tobacco determine its classification, and the appellants argued that their product was similar to 'Karta Chhap Zarda' in substance and process.The Excise Authorities did not heed the appellants' request for chemical analysis to compare their product with 'Karta Chhap Zarda'. The Assistant Collector classified the appellants' product under Tariff Heading 24.04 without conducting the requested analysis. The Collector and the Tribunal upheld this decision without considering the similarity between the appellants' product and 'Karta Chhap Zarda'. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for uniformity and leaving the classification to the Central Excise Officers.The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's reasoning lacking in addressing the appellants' claim of similarity with 'Karta Chhap Zarda'. The Court questioned the distinction made by Revenue Authorities without proper analysis. The Court sought an explanation for the differing treatment of the two manufacturers and decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a detailed examination. The Tribunal was directed to conduct a chemical analysis of the appellants' product, compare it with 'Karta Chhap Zarda', and consider all relevant materials for the classification decision.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for further consideration based on the similarity between the appellants' product and 'Karta Chhap Zarda'. The Court emphasized the importance of proper analysis and uniformity in classification decisions, ensuring justice and equity in excise matters.
TaxTMI 