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>Goods released without confiscation after Tribunal finds improper classification of seized tobacco.</h1> <h3>PRAKASH TOBACCO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR</h3> PRAKASH TOBACCO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 104 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Classification of seized tobacco as dutiable goods under Tariff Heading 24.04 or non-dutiable under Tariff Heading 24.01.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:The case involved the checking of a truck containing chewing tobacco, which was found to have been removed without payment of duty. The partner of the company admitted to this act due to a sudden demand from a customer. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties under various rules of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The goods were provisionally released on execution of bonds, and upon adjudication, the goods were confiscated with an option to redeem upon payment of a fine. A penalty was imposed, but the truck was released without confiscation.Classification of Seized Tobacco:The appellants argued that the seized chewing tobacco was unmanufactured, not subject to duty under Tariff Heading 24.01, as opposed to manufactured chewing tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.04. They contended that the samples drawn by seizing officers were not tested for classification, and they had consistently raised this issue. The adjudicating officer dismissed this argument, stating that the request for chemical analysis was belated. However, the Tribunal found that the samples were taken at the time of seizure and should have been tested. Since the Revenue failed to provide a satisfactory finding on the character of the tobacco, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.This judgment highlights the importance of proper classification of goods for duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasizes the need for thorough analysis and testing of samples to determine the correct classification, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal provisions in excise matters.
TaxTMI 