Page 250 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

432 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Zarda are entirely different and the legislature was aware of the distinction while
placing both the different product under different headings attracting different
rates of duties. The assessee’s only contention is that the said decision of the
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is not applicable to the present matter inasmuch as
the dispute in the said decision was in respect of payment of Sales Tax whereas
the issue involved in the present appeals is the rate of Excise duty.
We find no merits in the above contention of the Learned Advocate. It is
the classification of the product which is relevant and the subsequent conse-
quences of the same resulting in confirmation of demand of duty are result of the
decision on the classification. Whether in the case of Sales Tax or in the case of
Central Excise, once the product stand held as Jarda Scented Tobacco by the
Hon’ble High Court and there being no contra decision of any other High Court,
the ratio of the said decision would be fully applicable to the facts of the present
case. As such, by following the said decision, we hold that the appellants’ final
product declared by them as Chewing Tobacco is essentially Jarda Scented To-
bacco and stands correctly classified by the Lower Authorities under Tariff Items
No. 2403 99 30. As a consequence of classification of goods under said Heading,
the confirmation of demand of duty by the Lower Authorities is proper and ap-
propriate.
14. In view of the above, the impugned orders are upheld and all ap-
peals are rejected.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on - 6 November, 2019)
_______

Corrigendum to 1990 (45) E.L.T. 235 (All.)
There is misprint in the title details of case reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T.
235 (All.) (Collector v. Decent Dyeing Co.), as published in Vol. 45, Page 235 of Ex-
cise Law Times. Accordingly the first seven lines of the said case may be substi-
tuted by the following :

“1990 (45) E.L.T. 235 (All.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
K.C. Agarwal, Acting CJ. and R.K. Gulati, J.
ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF C. EX.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 436 of 1977, decided on 26-7-1989”

Readers are advised to make appropriate corrections in their copy.
Inconvenience caused due to this misprint, is deeply regretted.
________

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  250