Page 24 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Suspension of CHA license, confirmation thereof when sustainable - See
under CUSTOMS BROKER ............................. 323
Tax exemption under a Notification - Burden to prove for its entitlement is
on assessee claiming exemption - There is no ambiguity in the
notification and there is no need to interpret the notification by supplying
what is assumed to be missing in the notification — 3M India Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-I (Tri. - Bang.) ..................... 385
Taxation matters, no estopple against re-classification - See under
CLASSIFICATION ................................. 423
Time-limit for issuing Show Cause Notice for revocation of Customs Broker
Licence, whether directory or mandatory - See under CUSTOMS
BROKER’S LICENCE ................................ 323
Tobacco - Assessment under Chewing Tobacco and unmanufactured
Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of
Duty) Rules, 2010 - Scope of - Appellants contention that under Rules
ibid, Department can only consider number of machines installed in
factory and speed to fix duty liability and cannot examine correct
classification, is not acceptable - A cumulative reading of Rules ibid
clearly bring out that while passing orders under these Rules, correct
classification of product is also required to be examined by proper officer
without which correct assessment is not possible - Rule 6 of Chewing
Tobacco and unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity
Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 — Dharampal Premchand
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida (Tri. - All.) .................. 423
— Chewing Tobacco vis-à-vis Jarda Scented Tobacco - Re-classification by
Department - Sustainability - Appellant in their declaration under
Chewing Tobacco and unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine
(Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 declaring
goods as Chewing Tobacco falling under Tariff Item 2403 99 10 Central
Excise Tariff which, after causing necessary enquiries, was subsequently
changed by Department by re-classifying goods as Jarda Scented Tobacco
falling under Tariff Item 2403 99 30 ibid - HELD : Enquiries conducted
establishing that second unit of assessee was manufacturing same
product with admittedly same ingredients under same brand name by
declaring goods as Jarda Scented Tobacco - Test report of Chemical
Examiner of CRCL also confirming that goods were not Chewing
Tobacco but Jarda Scented Tobacco - That samples for testing had been
drawn from second unit of assessee, is not relevant because admittedly
ingredients and manufacturing process being carried in two units is same
- In any case, adjudicating authority has not blindly gone by test report
but has applied his mind independently by taking into consideration
admitted ingredients and study of various internet Websites including
that of appellant to arrive at correct classification - Existence of two
separate tariff items in Central Excise Tariff confirm that both products
ibid, are different items - A similar view was taken by Orissa High Court
in 1988 (15) E.C.C. 124 (Ori.) in a Sales Tax matter - Since there is no
estopple against re-classification of any product and duty has not been
demanded for past clearances, change of classification prospectively by
Department is perfectly in order - Impugned orders sustainable - Rule 6
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  24