https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368429 Recognised laboratory test reports prevailed over a departmental presumption that the goods contained scent, so the products were classified as chewing tobacco under Heading 24039910 and not as jarda scented tobacco under Heading 24039930. On that revised classification, the appellant was also found entitled to refund with consequential benefit and interest, with the Tribunal directing grant of the refund and applying the same treatment as in the comparable matter. The impugned classification and refusal of refund were therefore set aside in favour of the appellant. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368429 Recognised laboratory test reports prevailed over a departmental presumption that the goods contained scent, so the products were classified as chewing tobacco under Heading 24039910 and not as jarda scented tobacco under Heading 24039930. On that revised classification, the appellant was also found entitled to refund with consequential benefit and interest, with the Tribunal directing grant of the refund and applying the same treatment as in the comparable matter. The impugned classification and refusal of refund were therefore set aside in favour of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368429