TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are classifiable under tariff sub-heading 2401.00 as un-manufactured tobacco and not classifiable as manufactured tobacco under sub-heading 2404.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act'). 2.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The respondents are having licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). They are engaged in manufacture of 'Gul'. While scrutinizing the records, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Barrackpore Division, Calcutta noticed that during the period from 1-2-90 to 31-7-90 manufactured tobacco powder/dust fall under sub-heading 2404.90 of the Schedule to the 'Tariff Act'. He felt that without any justifiable reason, duty involving ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....The respondents who were appellants before the CEGAT submitted that the issue stood decided in view of the decisions rendered in two cases, i.e., Sree Biswa Vijaya Industries v. C.C.E., Bhubneshwar, 1997 (96) E.L.T. 712 (Tribunal) and Shamsuddin Akbar Khan & Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR (Order No. A-888/Cal/97 dated 29-7-1997). 7.Learned Counsel appearing for the Central Excise authorities submitted that in Shree Chand Agarwal v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (46) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal) it was categorically held that tobacco powder in various forms and combinations falls in the manufactured category and therefore tobacco powder is classifiable under tariff sub-heading 2404.90. The Tribunal noted that issue in Shree Chand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 35F of the Act. The CEGAT should have primarily considered that aspect. No finding has been recorded by the CEGAT. Additionally, we find that unlike the two cases relied upon by the CEGAT there was a categorical finding recorded on facts by the adjudicating authority that the tobacco powder obtained by crushing of un-manufactured tobacco leaves is a different commercial product having a distinct name and character. In the cases relied upon by the CEGAT it was categorically noticed that there was no material placed by the Central Excise authorities to show that a different commercial product had come into existence. 11.Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Railways Board [1972 (2) WLR 537] Lord Morris said : "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. " 13.Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 14.The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alt....