TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeal dismissed; re-test showed product is chewing tobacco, not jarda scented tobacco; classification upheld, revenue's challenge rejected</h1> The SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order: after an authorized re-test the product was found to be chewing tobacco rather than jarda ... Classification of goods - Jarda Scented Tobacco (tariff sub-heading for scented tobacco) or Chewing Tobacco (different tariff sub-heading)? - it was held by CESTAT that 'We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the revenue and in view of the discussions as above and the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court relied upon by the adjudicating authority in his order.' - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the finding that in the re-test, which was permitted by the authorities, the product was found not “Jarda Scented Tobacco” but “Chewing Tobacco”, there are no good reason to interfere with the order impugned. Appeal dismissed. Delay condoned. On the pivotal factual finding from the permitted re-test, the product was determined not to be 'Jarda Scented Tobacco' but 'Chewing Tobacco.' Given that determinative classification, there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Appeal is dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
