TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t under Chapter Heading 33.06 of CTA, 75 and CETA, 1985, the Revenue has contended in their appeal that the same is classifiable under Heading 3003.39. 2. After hearing both sides we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Dabur India v. C.C.E. Meerut reported in 2000 (36) RLT 639 CEGAT wherein the Tribunal held that identical product "Dant Shakti" used in the manufacture of "Lal Dant Manjan" is properly classifiable under Heading 3306. While holding so, the Tribunal in Para 7 observed as under : "The Appellants have mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal that the impugned product does not contain garlic powder which contributes cleaning properties to "Lal Dant Manjan". This fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and other statutory information. The Label describes the contents, compositions, and use of the product. In view of this the, provisions of Note 2 to Chapter 33 will be applicable and as the product is akin to tooth powder and following the ratio of Supreme Court's decision in Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan's case the impugned product will be classifiable under Heading No. 33.06 of the Tariff. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is rejected". 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent has held as under : "From above it is explicitly clear that subject goods are identical to the goods as dealt with by Hon'ble Tribunal in the above mentioned case and as such no scope is left to hold any co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r purpose other than as tooth powder. Therefore, in view of judgments cited by the appellant and Board's circulars referred in said judgments, I rule out classification of "Dant Mukta'' under Chapter 30 and hold that these are classifiable under Chapter Heading 33.06 of CETA, 1985." 4. The Revenue in their memo of appeal has reiterated the same ground which was placed before the Tribunal, in the case of Dabur. They have also contended that the "Dant Shakti" and "Dant Mukta"' are two different products and have produced following table in support of their contention : INPUT DANT SHAKTI DANT MUKTA PIPLI 21.50% 13.13% SUNTHI 08.20% 13.38% BLACK PEPPER - 13.13% TOMOR SEED 09.65% 07.88% HARIT AK....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Department to change its earlier stand only because of Revenue consideration. The letter further says, that the legal sanctity of court judgments must be given due respect. Therefore, the product may be classified under Heading 3306 in line with the Tribunal's judgment and the earlier stand before the Tribunal. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Dabur India. We find the appellant's claim of classification under Chapter 33 was rejected by the Tribunal and the Revenue's stand of the same being properly classifiable under Heading 3306 was accepted. The Revenue has not brought any new facts or new ground on recor....