Page 264 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

150 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

that they have made payment of duty of Rs. 25 Lakhs on 30-11-2015 and in
the written submission, claim to have paid duty of Rs. 7,63,99,000/- upto
February, 2016 under protest. I, therefore, order for appropriation of the du-
ty, paid against this demand, upon verification by the field formations.”
9. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the issue
which arises for consideration in these appeals are as to whether the goods man-
ufactured by the appellant are classifiable as Chewing Tobacco (CT) under Chap-
ter Heading 2403 99 10, or whether as Zarda Scented Tobacco (ZST) under Chap-
ter Heading 2403 99 30. The tariff does not define the product Zarda Scented To-
bacco (ZST) and Chewing Tobacco (CT), however, Bureau of Indian Standard
(BIS) provides the characteristics of ZST and CT separately vide entry Nos.
1523441994 and 1530411994 respectively. The BIS specification is as under;

S. Criteria Chewing Tobacco Zarda scented
No. tobacco
1. Moisture content 27 15
2. Nicotine 8 4
3. Total Ash 25 28
4. Acid Insoluble ash 5 4

10. Ld. Advocate, therefore, submits that the test reports in respect of
various samples that were drawn by the Department and tested by the CRCL, do
not give specific findings on dependent upon these parameters without which
the report is inconclusive.
11. The Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the result of the sam-
ples without having considered the test memo which were forwarded to the
CRCL. It was submitted that no test memos have been drawn in respect to sam-
ples and thus have been tested in absence thereof, and hence it would not be
possible to co-relate the results in test report with samples drawn so as to classify
the products manufactured by the appellant as Zarda Scented Tobacco (ZST) and
not the chewing tobacco (CT) as claimed by the department. The reliance was
placed on the decision of M/s. Hindustan Ferodo Limited v. CCE, Bombay, 1997 (89)
E.L.T. 16 (S.C.)].
12. Ld. Advocate also placed reliance in the decision of this Tribunal in
case of Urmin Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2010 (256) E.L.T. 597 (Tri.)], wherein it is
held that the tariff has not defined the expression Chewing Tobacco or Zarda Scent-
ed Tobacco. The products, therefore, have to be classified upon the description
given by the manufacturer on the pouches and on the basis of common parlance
test and established practice in trade. Ld. Advocate also placed reliance on the
decision in the matter of Flakes-N-Flavourz v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2015 (327) E.L.T.
435 (Tri.), wherein the ratio laid down in the Urmin Products (supra) has been
followed. Ld. Advocate also contended that it has been admitted that goods
manufactured by the appellant have been stated to be premium chewing tobacco
as per para 4.1 of SCN, and no market inquiry or other evidences have been ad-
duced by the Department which indicated that goods were sold by the appellant
as anything but CT. It was thus, submitted that the goods in question are nothing
but CT and the classification of the products manufactured by the appellant as
ZST is without any legal basis.
13. Ld. Advocate further submitted that CRCL test reports had not
been accepted by the appellants and they have requested for retest of the sample,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  312