https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124952 The Tribunal allowed the stay petitions unconditionally, emphasizing consistent treatment for similarly situated assessees. It rejected the argument of financial difficulty as grounds for directing the deposit of duty amounts, citing equal treatment for assessees in similar circumstances who were granted unconditional stays. The dispute centered on classifying the appellant's product as either "chewing tobacco" or "zarda scented tobacco," with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant's classification as "chewing tobacco" under Heading 2403 99 10, leading to the grant of stay orders. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:14:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124952 The Tribunal allowed the stay petitions unconditionally, emphasizing consistent treatment for similarly situated assessees. It rejected the argument of financial difficulty as grounds for directing the deposit of duty amounts, citing equal treatment for assessees in similar circumstances who were granted unconditional stays. The dispute centered on classifying the appellant's product as either "chewing tobacco" or "zarda scented tobacco," with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant's classification as "chewing tobacco" under Heading 2403 99 10, leading to the grant of stay orders. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124952