Consistent classification of MAMA zarda as chewing tobacco under...

Consistent classification of MAMA zarda as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 defeated a later attempt to treat it as zarda scented tobacco, because both the assessee and the department had treated it under the same tariff entry from 2012 to 2016; the duty demand, differential duty, interest and connected penalty were set aside. Rule 26 penalties also failed because liability to confiscation is a necessary precondition, and the order contained no actual finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The separate penalties on the noticees were therefore quashed.