TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether crushing and grinding of tobacco leaves, stems and related material into tobacco powder/granules amounted to manufacture and made the product classifiable under sub-heading 2404.90 or under Heading 24.01 as unmanufactured tobacco. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 209A could survive once the duty demand against the main appellant failed.
Issue (i): Whether crushing and grinding of tobacco leaves, stems and related material into tobacco powder/granules amounted to manufacture and made the product classifiable under sub-heading 2404.90 or under Heading 24.01 as unmanufactured tobacco.
Analysis: The activity consisted only of chopping and grinding tobacco leaves and stems into flakes or powder for use in hookah tobacco paste. The decision followed earlier Tribunal rulings which had already held that such processing does not amount to manufacture and that the resulting tobacco powder remains unmanufactured tobacco. The classification was held not to change merely because the product was later used in a different final product.
Conclusion: The product was classifiable under Heading 24.01 as unmanufactured tobacco and attracted nil rate of duty. The duty demand against the main appellant was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 209A could survive once the duty demand against the main appellant failed.
Analysis: The penalty on the other appellants was imposed only on the premise that the main appellant had cleared dutiable manufactured tobacco. Once the classification and duty demand were set aside, the foundation for the penalties disappeared.
Conclusion: The penalties under Rule 209A were not sustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in full and all the appeals were allowed, with the result that the duty demand and connected penalties failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere crushing or grinding of tobacco into powder does not amount to manufacture, and the classification of the resulting tobacco does not change by reason of its subsequent end use.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
