Page 332 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

978 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Third Party Evidence cannot be relied for alleging clandestine removal - See
under DEMAND .................................. 129
Tiles - Anti-dumping duty on polished porcelain/vitrified floor tiles
imported from Sri Lanka - Sri Lankan supplier importing semi-finished
tiles from China and after polishing and sizing thereof exporting to India
- Such tiles considered to have originated from Sri Lanka and not from
China and not liable to Anti-dumping duty under Notification No.
73/2003-Cus. — Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Tile Italia Mosaics Pvt. Ltd.
(Tri. - Bang.) ...................................... 143
Time-limit for issuing show cause notice for revocation of Customs Broker
licence is mandatory - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENCE ...... 689
Tobacco - Chewing tobacco vis-à-vis Zarda Scented Tobacco - Classification
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 - Further, 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
manufactured by assessee - Product being marketed as chewing tobacco
by declaring 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.)] — Kaipan
Pan Masala Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST, Ex. and Cus., Bhopal (Tri. - Del.) .......... 145
Tobacco manufacturer who closed his business and surrendered Central
Excise registration, liable to be refund of unutilized credit in cash - See
under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........................ 81
Tobacco Powder (Snuff) - Manufactured vis-à-vis unmanufactured Tobacco
- Classification - Demand - Department based on test report of Chemical
Examiner holding goods as manufactured tobacco and accordingly
demanding duty after classifying same under Tariff Item 2403 99 10 of
Central Excise Tariff - HELD : In first round of litigation, aforesaid test
report was discarded as unreliable evidence and matter was remitted for
readjudication after getting goods re-tested - However, since samples of
goods expired due to long time, readjudication has been done on the
basis of same test report - This report not reliable inasmuch two reports
were submitted by Chemical Examiner - In first report, it was mentioned
that tested Tobacco Powder was a coarse powder which may be
considered as manufactured tobacco - 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 - Further, cross-examination of Chemical Examiner was
not allowed during adjudication proceedings - No other evidence,
including any market survey, has been adduced by Department to
substantiate its stand - Even otherwise, during search, neither any
ingredients for mixture as mentioned ibid were found in factory nor any
mixing machine found - Only machines which were found were meant
for drying, cutting, crushing and grinding - In their statements, various
persons of appellant and its sister unit also stuck to stand that after
purchasing tobacco leaves from farmers only process undertaken was to
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  332