TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (1) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent. [Order per : G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President]. - The issue arising for determination in this appeal is whether the product named "Kapoori Tambaku Pan Masata" manufactured by the appellants fell for classification, at the relevant time, under Item No. 4(II)(5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (CET, for short) as chewing tobacco or under the residuary Item No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s Laboratory, Agra. Since it had been declared by the appellants before the department that the product contained 75 gms. of tobacco per kg. (which worked out to 7.5%), the department did not choose to have the product tested. Whether the percentage of tobacco is 7.5% or 10.8% would not seem to make any difference to the resolution of the present dispute. 5.  The other ingredients in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ari and not tobacco was the predominant constituent of the product, the proper classification was not as chewing tobacco which should contain tobacco as the principal ingredient. 8.  On the other hand, Shri Sachar's submission was that the presence of even one per cent tobacco in pan masala would render the product liable to duty as chewing tobacco because it was the tobacco which gave the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Report of the Taxation Enquiry Committee and certain judicial pronouncements, and also taking note of the Board's Tariff Advice, the Tribunal held that "Dokta" was classifiable under the residuary Item No. 68 and not under Item No. 4 II(5) as chewing tobacco. This was on the consideration among others that to be considered chewing tobacco a product should have tobacco as its main ingredient.....