https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366825 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the product should be classified as 'chewing tobacco' before February 2016 and as 'zarda scented tobacco' with flavorants thereafter. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed premature due to pending classification, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need for consistent treatment based on previous orders and product composition. The Revenue was directed to verify the appellant's claims and the status of the previous order, highlighting the importance of accurate classification and adherence to legal principles in resolving disputes. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:41:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366825 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the product should be classified as 'chewing tobacco' before February 2016 and as 'zarda scented tobacco' with flavorants thereafter. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed premature due to pending classification, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need for consistent treatment based on previous orders and product composition. The Revenue was directed to verify the appellant's claims and the status of the previous order, highlighting the importance of accurate classification and adherence to legal principles in resolving disputes. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366825