Branded zarda classification failed as unmanufactured tobacco, and the refund claim was rejected for lack of evidence.

Branded zarda sold under brand names was not shown to have changed in manufacture after the new Central Excise Tariff came into force, so it was not established as unmanufactured tobacco outside duty. The refund claim also failed because there was no supporting evidence for the claimed classification, and a later test report for a subsequent period could not govern the earlier period in dispute. On that basis, the lower authorities' findings were not shown to be erroneous and the duty liability was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods sold as branded zarda remained unmanufactured tobacco and were therefore not liable to duty under the new Central Excise Tariff, and whether the refund claim based on such classification was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly sold under brand names and duty had been paid on them as branded chewing tobacco before the new tariff came into force. The record did not show any change in the manufacturing process after the tariff change so as to alter the duty liability. The refund claim was unsupported by evidence, and the later test report for a subsequent period could not be applied to the earlier period in question. The findings of the lower authorities were therefore not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The goods were not established to be non-dutiable unmanufactured tobacco, and the refund claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the duty liability as determined by the lower authorities was sustained.

---