Page 56 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A30 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

reported in 2020 (372) E.L.T. 156 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (Borsad Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner). While admitting the appeals, the Supreme Court passed the fol-
lowing order :
“Delay condoned.
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned
order is allowed.
The appeal(s) are admitted.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the depart-
ment has failed to establish that goods under dispute are manufactured tobacco
meriting classification under Tariff Item 2403 99 10 of Central Excise Tariff and
chargeable to duty. It was held that two Chemical Examiner reports being con-
tradictory cannot be accepted. In first report, it was mentioned that tested Tobac-
co Powder was a coarse powder which may be considered as manufactured to-
bacco. However, in second report, given on the basis of department’s subsequent
communication, it was stated that said powder has been found mixed with other
ingredients like katha, calcium oxide or flavouring agents. If goods were found
in coarse stage as per first report, then there is no question of their having been
mixed with other goods ibid. Cross-examination of Chemical Examiner was not
allowed during adjudication proceedings and no other evidence, including any
market survey, has been adduced by department to substantiate its stand. Even
during search no evidence was found that any mixing was done. Test report of
reputed Agricultural University, produced by appellant also confirming that
goods are unmanufactured tobacco. In view of above it was held that goods are
not manufactured tobacco and merit classification as unmanufactured tobacco
classifiable under Heading 2401 ibid on which no Central Excise duty payable.
Demand was set aside.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh,
Ms. Priyanka Das and Mr. Sumit Upadhyay,
Advocates, for the Appellant.

(1) Manufacture — Lead ingots — Activity of conversion
of unrefined lead ingots into refined lead ingots to
make lead alloys for making batteries, whether
amounts to manufacture?
(2) Demand whether sustainable when activity not
amounts to manufacture?

(3) Job work — Exemption — Raw materials after pro-
cessing returned to supplier, whether benefit of Noti-
fication No. 214/86-C.E. available?

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah on 29-7-2019 after condoning the delay issued
notice in Civil Appeal Diary No. 20272 of 2019 filed by Commissioner of Central
Excise & Service Tax, Jammu & Kashmir against the CESTAT Final Order Nos.
A/62014-62016/2017-EX(DB), dated 17-10-2017 as reported in 2020 (372) E.L.T.
172 (Tri.-Chan.) (Commissioner v. Gravita Metals).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  104