Page 284 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

170 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Nos. A-920-924/CAL/99, dated 20-8-1999 [2000 (117) E.L.T. 345]. Para 7 of
the said judgment is reproduced below for better appreciation :-
After hearing the submissions from both sides, we find that the is-
sue is no more res integra. The various decisions cited by the
Learned Advocate have earlier been followed by the Tribunal in the
case of M/s. S. Akbar Khan & Co. v. Collector of Central Excise & Cus-
toms, Bhubaneswar by Order No. A-813/CAL/1997, dated 15-7-1997.
We also note that all the pleas now raised by the learned Advocate
for the Revenue were raised in the earlier cases and were taken note
of, but not found favour with. We also note that the said decisions
of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue against the same.
The distinction which the Commissioner has tried to draw between
the decision of Shree Chand Agarwal and the facts of the present case,
is not appreciable inasmuch as the classification of a product will
not change depending upon its use in the manufacture of different
final products. Whether the tobacco powder is used further in the
manufacture of Gul or Hooka Tobacco Paste or Gudakhu, will not
affect the classification of the Tobacco Powder as unmanufactured
tobacco under sub-heading 2401.00. On the contrary, the decision
relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the case of Ajanta Mar-
ble and Chemical Industries (supra), is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the same involve a
question relating to crushing/grinding of lime-stone to obtain chips
of powder and not powdering or crushing of tobacco leaves. Ac-
cordingly, following the ratio of the earlier decisions which are di-
rectly on the issue, we hold that the tobacco powder fell under
Heading 24.01 as unmanufactured tobacco and attracted nil rate of
duty. A demand of duty and penalty on the first appellants, M/s.
Shree Prasad Grinding Mills is thus set aside.”
6. It has been held in the various judgments that crushing/grinding of to-
bacco results into unmanufactured tobacco classifiable under Heading 24.01
attracting nil rate of duty. Accordingly, following the ratio of the above de-
cisions, the appeal of M/s. Iswar Grinding Mills is allowed.
7. As the appeal of the main appellants has been allowed, there is no justi-
fication for imposition of penalty either on the appellant company or on the
other appellants under the provisions of Rule 209A. Resultantly, we set
aside the impugned Order and allow all the appeals.
8. Since all the appeals are disposed of, all the Stay Petitions stand auto-
matically allowed.”
In case of Shrikant Prasad - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 345 (Tri.) it was held :
“After hearing the submissions from both sides, we find that the issue is no
more res integra. The various decisions cited by the learned Advocate have
earlier been followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S. Akbar Khan & Co.
v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar by Order No. A-
813/CAL/97, dated 15-7-1997. We also note that ail the pleas now raised by
the learned Advocate for the Revenue were raised in the earlier cases and
were taken note of, but not found favour with. We also note that the said
decisions of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue against the same. The dis-
tinction which the Commissioner has tried to draw between the decision of
Shree Chand Agarwal and the facts of the present case, is not appreciable in-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  332