Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether gudakhu manufactured by the appellants was classifiable as manufactured tobacco under Item 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, or liable to be assessed under Item 68 as residuary goods.
Analysis: The product had already been considered in the appellants' own case by the Orissa High Court, which had examined the constituents of gudakhu and held that it was akin to hookah tobacco and within the meaning of manufactured tobacco. The Tribunal treated that reasoning as applicable to the present dispute in the absence of any contrary decision. It also noted the exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1), which specifically referred to gudaku in granules and indicated that gudakhu was being treated as falling within the tobacco entry. The materials before the Tribunal showed that the product retained the essential character of tobacco, and there was no sufficient basis to treat it as a miscellaneous product under Item 68.
Conclusion: Gudakhu was held to fall under Item 4 as manufactured tobacco and not under Item 68. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a product retains the essential character of tobacco and is covered by the specific tariff entry for manufactured tobacco, it cannot be classified under the residuary entry.