https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426587 Classification dispute over a manufactured chewing tobacco product turned on adequacy of laboratory evidence and trade parlance. The chemical examiners CRCL report lacked definitions, testing parameters, and compliance with BIS specification, undermining its conclusion that the product is jarda scented tobacco; consequently that report cannot support reclassification. Evidence of packaging, presentation, sales and consumer usage establishes the product in trade parlance as chewing tobacco, and tariffed content descriptions prevent reclassification solely by contents. The appellants classification as chewing tobacco is therefore sustained and the impugned reclassification is set aside. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426587 Classification dispute over a manufactured chewing tobacco product turned on adequacy of laboratory evidence and trade parlance. The chemical examiners CRCL report lacked definitions, testing parameters, and compliance with BIS specification, undermining its conclusion that the product is jarda scented tobacco; consequently that report cannot support reclassification. Evidence of packaging, presentation, sales and consumer usage establishes the product in trade parlance as chewing tobacco, and tariffed content descriptions prevent reclassification solely by contents. The appellants classification as chewing tobacco is therefore sustained and the impugned reclassification is set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426587