Order Date – 08 August 2022

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s. Tej Ram Dharam Paul, installed pouch packing in the factory to be used for production of ‘Maha Pasand Jarda Scented Tobacco’ (without lime tubes) and paid duty for the period 10.3.2015 to 31.3.2015 as per Form-2 dated 17.3.2015.
• The department drew samples from the appellant’s premises and forwarded the same to Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) for testing and informed the appellants that as per the report it has the characteristic of Khaini and therefore the product is classifiable under chapter sub-heading 24039910 as Chewing Tobacco (other than filter khaini) and not under CESTH 24039930.
• Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal.

Issue – 

• Whether that product is chewing tobacco classifiable under heading 24039910 as claimed by the appellants or it is jarda scented tobacco classifiable under heading 24039930 as claimed by the revenue?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that in Trade parlance i.e. from packaging and presentation, sales and distribution and till its consumption by the ultimate consumer the product in issue is known as chewing tobacco only. 
• The learned commissioner has also overlooked that the contents of the product in dispute have been prescribed under the Tariff and therefore the classification cannot be based on contents.
• The Tribunal relied on the matter of Flakes-N-Flavours vs. CCE in which it was held that in the absence of anything to the contrary, the product in question has to be treated as per the description given by the manufacturer on outer cover of pouch, common parlance and established practice as the chewing tobacco or zarda scented tobacco have not been defined in the tariff.
• Therefore the classification given by the appellant held proper and hence the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.