https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89916 Chewing tobacco seized by the department could not be treated as manufactured tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.04 without proper proof of its true character. Because samples were drawn at seizure and remained in Revenue custody, they should have been sent for chemical examination; the department's failure to do so meant classification was not satisfactorily established. A partner's statement alone was insufficient to prove manufacture, particularly where the Board's clarification indicated that unmanufactured tobacco merely broken, sieved, and packed for chewing remained classifiable under Heading 24.01. On that record, duty liability, confiscation, and penalty were not sustainable. en-us Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:13:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89916 Chewing tobacco seized by the department could not be treated as manufactured tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.04 without proper proof of its true character. Because samples were drawn at seizure and remained in Revenue custody, they should have been sent for chemical examination; the department's failure to do so meant classification was not satisfactorily established. A partner's statement alone was insufficient to prove manufacture, particularly where the Board's clarification indicated that unmanufactured tobacco merely broken, sieved, and packed for chewing remained classifiable under Heading 24.01. On that record, duty liability, confiscation, and penalty were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89916