TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is as under : The appellants were manufacturing kimam on which they were paying ad valorem duty on value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were classifying the goods under heading 2404.41 as "chewing tobacco and preparation containing chewing tobacco" so long as the tariff was six digit based. With the introduction of the eight digit based tariff, they started classifying their product under 2403 99 60 as "tobacco extracts and essence" and continued to pay duty as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The department was of the view that their product was rightly classified under 2403 99 20 which is liable to be assessed under Section 4A ibid and hence the impugned demand and penalties. 3. The appellants ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....times its quantity of water. The aquatic portion is separated and is kept boiling till such time it attains the required thickness. The extract/liquid kimam thus produced is admixed with other items like spices and condiments, natural and artificial flavours, tobacco dura and silver leaves. The kimam is then packed into unit containers of 50 grams or 10 grams. The refuse tobacco leaves are dried under the sun in the open and stored in bags." 8. From the above process it is evident that Kimam is a preparation containing tobacco and is used in small quantities in making pan, even though it is generally not consumed as it is. The central excise tariff followed six digit classifications up to 2004-05. During this period, the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Dharampal Satyapal (supra) held that the impugned product was covered under the description : "Preparation containing chewing tobacco". as is evident from Para 19 of the said Supreme Court's judgment. The appellants have contended that kimam is not chewing tobacco or preparation containing chewing tobacco. However, in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment, holding it to be covered under the scope of "preparation containing chewing tobacco (i.e. under the tariff sub-heading 2404.41 : Chewing tobacco, preparation containing chewing tobacco"), there is no scope for any discussion in this regard because it can be nobody's case that if the impugned goods were covered under the expression "preparation containing chewing tobacco" at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 99 60), if they had doubts they should have got their doubts clarified. When there had not been such initiative on the part of the appellants, they cannot claim that this has been the bona fide dispute. The appellants also plead that they have only been singled out for payment of duty under Tariff Heading 2403 99 20, where duty is payable as per valuation under MRP structure under provisions of Sec. 4A of Central Excise Act. But the appellants have not been able to prove this argument and they have not shown any instance, where other assessees are manufacturing this item namely, 'kimam' and are being charged duty under different Tariff Heading. 13. Thus it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) held them guilty of suppression for....