Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Kothari Products Ltd. vs Govt. Of A.P. on 25 January, 2000
In our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Kothari Products (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, we are strictly concerned with interpretation of Tariff entries, quoted hereinabove, under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. Moreover, in Chapter 21, under Chapter note 3 at the relevant time, Pan masala has been defined to mean preparations containing tobacco. In these cases, we are concerned with the product, namely Pan masala. We do not wish to express any view on the merits of the case, except to say that the judgment of this Court in Kothari Products is not applicable and, in our view, the Tribunal ought to have examined the scheme of the Central Excise Tariff Act which has not been done in these cases.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2009
4.4 In this case, while heading 2106.00 covered Pan masala during the period of dispute, Chapter note 3 to Chapter 21 defined the term Pan masala as any preparation containing betel nuts and any one or more of the ingredients namely lime, katha (catechu) and tobacco, whether or not containing other ingredients such as cardamom, copra and menthol. This chapter note 3 expanded the scope of the term Pan masala to include the Pan masala containing tobacco. It is only w.e.f. 1/3/2001 that chapter note 3 of Chapter 21 was amended to exclude the Pan masala containing tobacco and in Chapter 24, a specific Sub-heading 2404.49 for Pan Masala containing tobacco was inserted. Therefore, during the period of dispute, Pan masala containing tobacco, by virtue of Chapter note 3 to Chapter 21 was specifically covered by Sub-heading 2106.00, while during that period, Sub-heading 2404.40 covered chewing tobacco and preparations containing chewing tobacco. Since Pan masala containing tobacco was more specifically covered by Sub-heading 2106.00 and a heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to the heading providing a general description, we hold that during the period of dispute, the Pan masala containing tobacco i.e. Gutka was correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 2106.00 of the tariff. We find that while Honble Supreme Court in the remand order has specifically observed that its judgment in case of Kothari Products Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, Honble Madras High Court in case of Dharampal Stayapal Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 179 (Mad.) has held that though w.e.f. 1/3/2001 chewing tobacco and Pan masala containing tobacco are in the same heading, chewing tobacco does not include and never included Pan masala containing tobacco and but for inclusion of Pan masala containing tobacco in Chapter 24 (Sub-heading 2404.49) of Central Excise Tariff w.e.f. 1/3/01, it would have been covered by heading 2106.00.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Section 8 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
C.C.E., Delhi Iv vs M/S Pt. Rati Ram Engineering Works on 8 July, 2010
4.3 As per the provisions of Rule 1 of the Rules for the interpretation of 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which is part of the 1st Schedule, the classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or Chapter notes and if such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to the provisions of Rule 2, 3, 4 & 5 of these Rules. Tribunal in case of CCE vs. Metrowood Engineering Works reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 660 (Trib.) has held that the relevant headings in the tariff have to be interpreted and applied in the light of Section notes and chapter notes which are statutory and binding like the headings themselves, that these section notes and chapter notes sometimes expand and sometimes restrict the scope of certain headings and that the scheme of Customs Tariff Act is to determine the coverage of the respective headings in the light of Section notes and chapter notes and that the Section notes and Chapter notes have an overriding force on the respective headings.
M/S. Coats Viyella India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Madurai on 4 July, 2001
2.2 The Appellants counsels, while not contesting the classification of Gutka during the period of dispute under Sub-heading 2106.00, pleaded that while during the period prior to November 2000, they were classifying the Pan masala containing tobacco (Gutka) under Sub-heading 2106.00, it is only on the Departments instructions that in November 2000, they filed fresh declaration classifying the goods under Sub-heading 2404.40 of the Tariff, that while the goods covered by Sub-heading 2106.00 attracted 16% Cenvat duty and 24% SED, the goods covered by Sub-heading 2404.40 attracted 16% Cenvat duty + 24% SED + 10% AED (GSI)), that in spite of the goods having been classified under Sub-heading 2404.40 from November 2000, as per the Departments instructions, the Department subsequently issued show cause notices for revising the classification to Sub-heading 2106.00 and demanding the differential duty, that during the period of dispute, MRP based assessment under Section 4A was not applicable to Pan masala and hence the assessable value would remain the same whether the goods are classified under Sub-heading 2106.00 or Sub-heading 2404.40 and since under Sub-heading 2404.40, the AED (GSI) at the rate of 10% adv. was also payable in addition to 16% Cenvat duty + 24% SED, if the Department revises the classification to 2106.00, the Appellant have paid excess duty, that in any case, since AED is not payable if the goods, during the period of dispute, are classified under Sub-heading 2106.00, the AED paid by the Appellant during this period on account of Classification under Sub-heading 2404.40, must be adjusted towards Basic excise duty (Cenvat duty) demand and that in this regard, reliance is placed on Tribunals judgment in case of Coats Viyella India Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 90.
1