2018 (10) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adjudicating authority and rejected the claim of the appellant. 2. The issue involved in the present appeal is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of chewing tobacco falling under Heading No. 24039910 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are paying duty under the provisions of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. The facts and the issues in both the appeals were inter related and therefore, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the common order. The issue involved in this case is regarding classification of the product manufactured by the appellant as to whether 'jarda scented tobacco' classifiable under Heading No. 24039930 of CETA,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower adjudicating authority has not subscribed the view expressed by the two testing authorities (CRCL) recognised by the Department viz. Regional CRCL Laboratory and the CRCL, New Delhi. The ground taken by the appellate authority as well as the primary adjudicating authority was that the report says that mainly contents lime and tobacco and there is no finding about the scent being used in manufacture of goods. Therefore, it was opined that the report is not conclusive and the product need to be classifiable as 'jarda scented tobacco' and not chewing tobacco under CETA, 1985. 5. The ld. DR supports and justifies the impugned order passed by the lower adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. 6.....