https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426811 Classification dispute over chewing tobacco versus jarda scented tobacco turned on evidentiary sufficiency of chemical tests and conformity with BIS specifications. The Chemical Examiners reports lacked essential moisture and nicotine analyses and did not define jarda scented tobacco parameters, rendering their conclusion unreliable; a re-test opinion by the Jt. Director, CRCL found the samples to be chewing tobacco consistent with BIS parameters, and no material evidence was produced by revenue to justify reclassification. The commissioner erred by relying on statements and perceived odour as scent and by ignoring the Jt. Directors re-test; appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426811 Classification dispute over chewing tobacco versus jarda scented tobacco turned on evidentiary sufficiency of chemical tests and conformity with BIS specifications. The Chemical Examiners reports lacked essential moisture and nicotine analyses and did not define jarda scented tobacco parameters, rendering their conclusion unreliable; a re-test opinion by the Jt. Director, CRCL found the samples to be chewing tobacco consistent with BIS parameters, and no material evidence was produced by revenue to justify reclassification. The commissioner erred by relying on statements and perceived odour as scent and by ignoring the Jt. Directors re-test; appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426811