1988 (12) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri L.C. Chakraborty, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G. Sankaran, Senior Vice-President]. - The issue for determination in these appeals is whether the appellants were eligible for refund of the duty claimed by them from the Department on the ground that the product manufactured by them, namely, 'gudakhu' falls under Item 4 II of the Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Orissa High Court's judgment in State of Orissa v. Shamsuddin Akbar Khan & Co. reported in 1968 (35) STC 179 was relevant. The High Court, after taking into consideration the constituents of the product, came to the conclusion that 'gudakhu' was not very much different from hookah tobacco and held that the item would come within the meaning of manufactured tobacco. The question arose in the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d earth. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the product 'gudakhu' fell under Item 4 and not Item 68. The product in the present appeals, as seen from the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-2-1982, contains 50% molasses, 40% tobacco, the rest being lime, clay etc. 4.  Following the previous decisions of this Tribunal, (Orders No. 185/87-D, dated 11-3-1987 and No. 353/87-D, dated 4-5-1987), the ....