Page 302 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

188 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

“The appellants before us have impugned the decision of the Tribunal by
which the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Excise Authorities to classify
the product manufactured by the appellant under Tariff Heading 24.04 viz.,
“Manufactured tobacco”. According to the appellant the product was
properly classifiable under Heading 24.01 i.e. “Unmanufactured tobacco”.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellants’ product is chewing tobacco. It is
also not in dispute that chewing tobacco is not necessarily manufactured
tobacco or classifiable under Tariff Heading 24.04. The classification of
chewing tobacco as ‘unmanufactured’ or ‘manufactured’ tobacco will ulti-
mately depend on the process adopted for and the composition of the
chewing tobacco. The appellants have relied upon the instance of a particu-
lar manufacturer of chewing tobacco, namely, M/s. Chandulal K. Patel and
Company who also manufactures chewing tobacco under the trade name
‘Karta Chhap Zarda’ and whose product has been classified by the Excise
authority under unmanufactured tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.01. Ac-
cording to the appellants, their product was, in substance the same as ‘Kar-
ta Chhap Zarda’ and they had followed the same process as M/s. Chan-
dubhai Patel & Co.
3. It appears from the records that several letters were written by the ap-
pellants to the Excise Authorities requesting that a sample of the appellants’
product may be chemically analysed at the appellants’ cost for the purpose
of determining whether the appellants’ product or process in any way dif-
fered from the product and process of M/s. Chandulal K. Patel and Com-
pany. However, the Excise Authorities decided against the appellants with-
out heeding such request. On 4-8-1988 a decision was taken by the Assistant
Collector to classify the appellants’ product under Tariff Heading 24.04. On
11-8-1988 a sample of the appellants’ product was taken by the respondents
but returned within one week without testing on the ground that the issue
was being finalised by the Assistant Collector. In the appeal preferred to the
Collector, the appellants again raised the issue specifically that the process
followed by and the product of the appellants were identical with that of
M/s. Chandulal K.P. Patel and Company and that the appellants’ product
should be similarly classified under Heading 24.01. While upholding the
decision of the Assistant Collector, the Collector did not consider this aspect
of the matter at all. The point was again taken specifically in the appellants’
appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal however dismissed the appeal and said :
“The appellants have stated that some of the manufacturers who
were producing similar goods, were not paying any excise duty on
their production. These matters are not before us and it is neither
possible nor desirable for us to deal with these matters. Suffice it to
say that each and very case has to be examined in the light of our
above observations, and it is for the competent Central Excise Offic-
ers to come to correct decisions in consonance with the principles of
uniformity, equity and justice”.
4. It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the Tribunal. The least that
the Tribunal could have done in the interest of ‘uniformity’ was to call upon
the Revenue Authorities to explain why they were making a distinction be-
tween the appellants’ product and that of M/s. Chandulal K. Patel without
subjecting the appellants’ product to any chemical analysis.
5. In their appeal from the decision of the Tribunal before us the appel-
lants have again raised the issue that the Tribunal should have considered
the fact that the appellants and Chandulal K. Patel & Co’s products were
identical and were the outcome of an identical process, and that since the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  350