Page 247 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA 429

declarations filed in the said rule were for the purpose of determination of cor-
rect annual production capacity of a particular unit. While passing the orders in
terms of the said rules, by way of approving the declarations, the correct classifi-
cation of the product being manufactured by the assessee is definitely required to
be examined. Without deciding on the correctness of the description of the goods
declared by the party, it is not possible and practical as also legal to determine
the capacity and assessee’s liability to pay duty. As such, we find no merits in the
above contention of the Learned Advocate.
11. We also note that classification under the main Heading 2403 places
Chewing Tobacco as also Jarda Scented Tobacco under two different sub-heads.
For better appreciation, we reproduce the said heading as under :-

‘2403 OTHER MANUFACTURED TOBACCO AND
MANUFACTURED TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES;
“HOMOGENISED” OR “RECONSTITUTED” TOBACCO;
TOBACCO EXTRACTS AND ESSENCES -
2403 99 -- Other :
2403 99 10 --- Chewing tobacco
2403 99 20 --- Preparations containing chewing tobacco
2403 99 30 --- Jarda scented tobacco
2403 99 40 --- Snuff
2403 99 50 --- Preparations containing snuff
2403 99 60 --- Tobacco extracts and essence
2403 99 70 --- Cut-tobacco
2403 99 90 --- Other’

As is seen from the above that Chewing Tobacco and Jarda Scented Tobacco are
classifiable under two different Tariff Items. The test report of the chemical ex-
aminer clearly reveals that the product in question is not Chewing Tobacco but
the same is Jarda Scented Tobacco. Zarda is admittedly a variety of Chewing To-
bacco but keeping in view two separate headings for Chewing Tobacco and Jarda
Scented Tobacco leads us to conclude that the two products are different prod-
ucts classifiable under different tariff items and have to be assessed accordingly
going by the ingredients of the product. As already discussed such ingredients
stand revealed by the test report of the chemical examiner supported by the
statement of Shri Shashi Kumar Maheshwari.
12. Revenue has also relied upon the search made on the Internet as al-
so on the glossary and terms picked up from ICS 65.160 for BIS use. For better
appreciation, relevant paragraphs from one of the impugned Order-in-Original
No. 04/COMM/NOIDA/2017-18, dated 29-11-2017 are reproduced below :-
“5.1.4.3 Further, the search on the internet with reference to the party and
its produce ‘BABA’ reveals the following information which is available in
public domain :
(i) As per party’s website www.baba.in, M/s. Dharampal Prem-
chand Ld. (DPPCL) was founded in 1929 with the sole inten-
tion of reviving the great Indian tradition of ‘Zarda’.
(ii) As per the B2B online e-commerce website www.indiamart.
com, anyone who is associated with the India Paan Tradition,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  247