Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Salem vs M/S. Muthuvelappa Gounder & Sons on 24 February, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/222/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.184/2002 (ADK)(CBE) dated 18.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Salem Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Muthuvelappa Gounder & Sons Respondents
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Appellant Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 24.02.2010 Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The respondents have sought classification of the impugned tobacco product as unmanufactured product under Heading 24.01 of the Central Excise Tariff which has been approved by the lower appellate authority. The Department is in appeal seeking classification of the impugned goods as chewing tobacco under chapter sub-heading 2404.41 which is the classification for chewing tobacco bearing a brand name. 2 After hearing both sides we find that the respondents are merely curing the tobacco outside their premises but treating the same with jaggery water for preventing moulding and drying. Such treatment merely results in production of cured tobacco which as per the HS Explanatory Notes under Heading 2401 remains covered as unmanufactured tobacco under the said heading. Accordingly, we find no merit in the case of the Department. Consequently, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3