Page 259 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] KAIPAN PAN MASALA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF CGST, EX. AND CUS., BHOPAL 145

2020 (372) E.L.T. 145 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
S/Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
KAIPAN PAN MASALA PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST, EX. AND CUS., BHOPAL

Final Order Nos. 53614-53620/2018, dated 14-11-2018 in Appeal Nos. E/50468-
50472, 51319 & 51978/2018-DB
1
Tobacco - Chewing tobacco vis-à-vis Zarda Scented Tobacco - Classifi-
cation of - Department relying upon CRCL test report of samples drawn from
factory premises held that the product classifiable under Tariff Item 2403 99 30
of Central Excise Tariff as Zarda Scented Tobacco as against assessee’s claim of
classification under Tariff Item 2403 99 10 ibid as chewing tobacco - Neither
test report giving any conclusive finding on BIS parameters with regard to
moisture content, nicotine, total ash and acid insoluble ash contained in Zarda
Scented Tobacco and Chewing Tobacco as mentioned at Entry Nos. 1523441994
and 1530411994 respectively nor request for retesting of samples allowed - Fur-
ther, no test memos having been drawn in respect of samples sent to CRCL,
test report given in absence thereof cannot be co-related with products manu-
factured by assessee - Product being marketed as chewing tobacco by declar-
ing description on pouches as Chewing Tobacco Premium classifiable under
Tariff Item 2403 99 10 of Central Excise Tariff in view of decision in Flakes-N-
Flavourz [2015 (327) E.L.T. 435 (Tri.- Del.)]. [paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]
Sample test report given in absence of test memos which were not
prepared at the time of drawl of samples, not co-relatable with disputed prod-
uct, hence not reliable. [para 18]
Sample testing - Natural justice - Re-testing of samples when initial
test report inconclusive - Denial of request for re-testing of samples amounts
to violation of principles of natural justice. [para 19]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Flakes-N-Flavourz — 2016 (331) E.L.T. A35 (S.C.) — Relied on ......................... [Para 20]
Commissioner v. Mutha Founders Pvt. Ltd. — 2017 (347) E.L.T. 411 (Bom.) — Relied on ........... [Para 20]
Flakes-N-Flavourz v. Commissioner — 2015 (327) E.L.T. 435 (Tribunal) — Relied on .......... [Paras 12, 20]
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner —
2014 (306) E.L.T. 315 (Guj.) — Relied on ..................................................................................... [Para 20]
Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) — Referred .................................. [Para 11]
Katyal Industries v. Union of India — 2017 (346) E.L.T. 218 (All.) — Relied on ............................. [Para 19]
State of Rajasthan v. R.S. Sharma and Company — 1998 (4) SCC (353) — Relied on .................... [Para 20]
Urmin Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (256) E.L.T. 597 (Tribunal) — Referred ....... [Para 12]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Aditya Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative, for the
Respondent.
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A28
(S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  307