Page 241 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA 423

appellants, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has decided the issue on merit
against the assessee observing that the same is classifiable under Customs Tariff
Heading 9001 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, the appeals filed by the
assessees are accordingly dismissed.
7. As far as Appeal Nos. C/54 & 55/2010 are concerned, in addition to
confirmation of the demand, the authorities below have imposed fine and penal-
ty, which in our opinion cannot be sustained as the issue involved relates to clas-
sification of the imported Optical Fibre Cables and no facts have been sup-
pressed nor misdeclared while claiming classification under Heading No. 8544 of
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Consequently, the fine and penalties imposed are set
aside and orders are modified to this extent and appeals are partly allowed.
8. With regard to Appeal No. C/126/10 filed by the Revenue, which re-
lates to enhancement of penalty, the same is dismissed and the Appeal No.
C/688/2008, also of the Revenue, which relates to classification of the Optical
Fibre Cables under Tariff Heading 9001, is hereby allowed.
9. The appeals are disposed of as above.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court)
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 423 (Tri. - All.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar,
Member (T)
DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA
Final Order Nos. 71884-71894/2019, dated 6-11-2019 in Appeal Nos. E/70031/2018
1
with E/70238-70245 & E/70437-70438/2018
Tobacco - 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 (Ca-
pacity 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 De-
partment 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 ingre-
dients 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 admit-
tedly ingredients and manufacturing process being carried in two units is
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (373) E.L.T.
A94 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  241