Page 242 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

424 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

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 Cen-
tral Excise Tariff confirm that both products ibid, are different items - A simi-
lar 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 classi-
fication prospectively by Department is perfectly in order - Impugned orders
sustainable - Rule 6 of Chewing Tobacco and unmanufactured Tobacco Pack-
ing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010.
[paras 8, 9, 11, 12, 13]
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, Depart-
ment 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 exam-
ined by proper officer without which correct assessment is not possible - Rule
6 of Chewing Tobacco and unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capac-
ity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. [para 10]
Classification - Estopple against re-classification - Settled in catena of
decisions that there is no estopple in taxation matters and erroneous classifica-
tion done earlier is not a bar for Department to make correct re-classification
subsequently. [para 9]
Appeals rejected
CASES CITED
Mcgaw-Ravindra Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Union of India— 1992 (60) E.L.T. 71 (Guj.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Mishra Zarda Traders v. State of Orissa — 1988 (15) E.C.C. 124 (Ori.) — Relied on ................ [Paras 5, 13]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri T.R. Rustagi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Singh
and Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Authorised Representa-
tives, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - All the appeals are being
disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in all of them is identical
though the orders impugned are different.
2. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufac-
ture of excisable goods namely chewing tobacco, perfumery compounds etc. The
dispute in the present appeals relate to the correct classification of the product
declared by the appellants as “Chewing Tobacco” falling under Chapter Heading
No. 2403 99 10 whereas according to the Revenue the correct classification of the
product is “Jarda Scented Tobacco” falling under Chapter Heading 2403 99 30. In
some of the appeals the declaration filed by the appellants stand changed from
chewing tobacco to Zarda whereas in some of the appeals the demand stands
confirmed against them, as a consequence of change in classification or the re-
funds of Excise duty paid by them stand rejected.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  242