Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT appellate tribunal adjudicated a dispute concerning tobacco product classification, determining that the appellant intentionally misclassified goods as Chewing Tobacco instead of Jarda Scented Tobacco to evade higher duty rates. The SC's precedential ruling in Urmin Products conclusively established the appellant's deliberate misclassification. Consequently, the tribunal upheld levy of interest and penalty, finding the appellant liable for duty evasion. The court mandated payment of interest as compensatory measure and imposed penalty equivalent to the duty amount under applicable excise rules. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the revenue's position and confirming the goods' correct classification as Jarda Scented Tobacco under Tariff Entry 2403 9930.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
