https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793013 Classification of the tobacco product as chewing tobacco rested on its consistent declaration under CETI 2403 99 10 and the department's repeated acceptance of that classification. A later contrary classification as zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30 could not support a differential duty demand; the related interest and penalty under section 11AC consequently failed. Penalties under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules required a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. Without a proper finding on confiscability, those penalties were unsustainable. The adverse duty and penalty liabilities were removed. en-us Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2026 08:52:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793013 Classification of the tobacco product as chewing tobacco rested on its consistent declaration under CETI 2403 99 10 and the department's repeated acceptance of that classification. A later contrary classification as zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30 could not support a differential duty demand; the related interest and penalty under section 11AC consequently failed. Penalties under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules required a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. Without a proper finding on confiscability, those penalties were unsustainable. The adverse duty and penalty liabilities were removed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793013