Page 249 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA 431

Further in the case of Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs - 2002-
TIOL-267-SC-CUS it was held that if a particular product description occurs
by itself in a Tariff Entry and there is no conflict between the Tariff Entry
and any other entry requiring to reconcile and harmonious that Tariff Entry
with any other entry. The relevant para read as under :
“Customs - Imports - Marble - Classification - There is no doubt that
the general principle of interpretation of Tariff Entries occurring in
a text statute is of a commercial nomenclature and understanding
between persons in the trade but it is also a settled legal position
that the said doctrine of commercial nomenclature or trade under-
standing should be departed from in a case where the statutory con-
tent in which the Tariff Entry appears, requires such a departure -
In cases where the application of commercial meaning or trade no-
menclature runs counter to the statutory context in which the said
word was used then the said principle of interpretation should not
be applied- Trade meaning or commercial nomenclature would be
applicable if a particular product description occurs by itself in a
Tariff Entry and there is no conflict between the Tariff Entry and
any other entry requiring to reconcile and harmonise that Tariff En-
try with any other Entry.”
Further in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others - 2002-
TIOL-647-SC-CU-LB it has been held that there is no estoppels in Taxation
matters.”
13. Apart from the above, we find that the issue of classification of ‘Ba-
ba’ Zarda stands finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case
of Mishra Zarda Traders v. State of Orissa referred supra. While dealing with classi-
fication of the said product, the Hon’ble High Court observed that ‘Baba’ Zarda
Zafrani Patti Scented Tobacco is essentially Zarda and not Chewing Tobacco. The
same is leviable to tax. For better appreciation relevant findings of the Hon’ble
High Court are reproduced below :-
“I find that in the grounds of appeal, the appellants have mainly contended
that in spite of the fact that Zarda may maintain its character as a variety of
chewing tobacco and ordinarily is chewed with pan, the legislature has
drawn a line of distinction between “chewing tobacco” as such and its more
refined form “Zarda”. By simply labeling of the commodity “Baba Zarda”
as scented chewing tobacco by the manufacturer, it could not be said to be
the same commodity which in common parlance is known as chewing to-
bacco which is taken by people in this part of the country with lime in its
powder form by rubbing it with the thumb. The mode and the manner of
consumption of the common chewing tobacco and Zarda are entirely dif-
ferent. The legislature must be aware of this distinction while mentioning
different products of tobacco in the entry in question and it certainly in-
tended to make a distinction between “chewing tobacco” from the category
of the taxable items and making it tax-free, but at the same time, keeping
Zarda as a taxable commodity, a distinction between chewing tobacco and
Zarda was accepted. It might have been intended that as this article is con-
sumed by common people and the proper section of the society, “chewing
tobacco” should be exempted from Sales Tax, but its more luxurious refined
form “Zarda” should be kept as a taxable commodity.”
As is seen from the above reproduced portion of the Hon’ble High Court deci-
sion, mode and manner of consumption of the common Chewing Tobacco and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  249