2020 (3) TMI 1338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....co and Chewing Tobacco falling under chapter sub-heading 2403 99 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said product was notified under Notification No. 17/2000 and C.E. (N.T.), dated 13-4-2012 issued under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.1 The respondent had filed declarations in Form-1 from time to time under Rule 6 of the Chewing Tobacco and Manufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. In the said declaration they had declared the number of single track machines installed in their factory premises and used for production/packing of pouches of chewing tobacco without lime tubes classifiable under CSH of various brands of MRP Rs. 1/- per pouch. Accordingly, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner rejecting the declared product as Chewing Tobacco without lime tubes. All the three Orders Bearing Numbers 22/2015, dated 4-12-2015, 23/2015, dated 4-12-2015 and 27/2015, dated 20-1-2016 were challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The factory premises of the respondent was visited on 3-12-2015 by the central excise officers on the basis of some intelligence that the respondent were not discharging appropriate duty on the manufactured product. The officers drew samples of the goods manufactured by the respondent under panchnama and sent the same for testing. Also, statements were recorded and further investigation in the matter was carried out. During the course of investigation respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (Appeals) is challenged by the Revenue before us. 5. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR for the Revenue has submitted that erroneously the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the classification of the product is yet to be decided in the pending show cause notice dated 1-7-2016. It is the contention of the Revenue that the classification of the product as 'Jarda Scented Tobacco' has already been decided by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner while determining the production capacity of the installed machines under the relevant rules. Therefore, further adjudication on the issue of classification would not be necessary. It is his contention that the show cause notice issued subsequently is a sequel to the cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2403 99 30 of CETA, 1985 so as to apply the appropriate duty under the relevant notification notified under Sec. 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Revenue is on appeal on the ground that while determining the production capacity under the relevant rules even though the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of test report of CRCL, New Delhi held that the commodity manufactured by the Respondent is 'Jarda Scented Tobacco' classifiable under CSH 2403 99 30 and not chewing tobacco without lime tube as declared by the Respondent, but the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) disposed the appeals filed against said capacity determination orders observing that the issue of classification of the commodity is still pending with the Department bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rther investigation by recording statements of the concerned employees, Director and on completion of the investigation, issued show cause notice dated 1-7-2016 proposing/alleging classification of the product as Jarda scanted tobacco and proposed to recover/appropriate differential duty payable/paid and it is informed by the Revenue that the said notice is still pending adjudication. We have seen the show cause notice dated 1-7-2016 annexed with the appeal memo. It refers to the three annual capacity determination Orders passed by the Dy. Commissioner. 11. In this back drop, we do not find any apparent error in the finding of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). The proposed change of classification of the commodity elaborately anal....