M/S. Rathinampillai Ganesan (Rethna Tobacco Company) vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Rathinampillai Ganesan (Rethna Tobacco Company), represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ appeal challenging an order dated 24.10.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.12626 of 2020. The appellant sought to reclassify its product, unmanufactured tobacco, under heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff. The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Thanjavur, was the respondent. The appellant contended that the classification should consider the nature and process adopted, relevant HSN explanatory notes, and judicial pronouncements. The writ appeal was filed after the appellant's writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant sought to set aside the Single Judge's order and allow the appeal.

Held

The Court held that so long as the appellant's activities are confined to what was approved in the "Pachiappa Chettiar case," their product would fall under CETH 2401 20 90. The Court set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and the order of the learned Single Judge assailed in the writ appeal. The reasoning appears to be based on a prior decision in WA(MD)No.746 of 2025, which likely dealt with similar classification issues for unmanufactured tobacco. The ratio decidendi is that if the processing of unmanufactured tobacco aligns with the parameters established in the "Pachiappa Chettiar case," then the classification under heading 2401 20 90 is appropriate. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition and the writ appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant's product, unmanufactured tobacco, should be classified under heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff, considering the nature and process adopted, relevant HSN explanatory notes, and judicial pronouncements? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that their product, unmanufactured tobacco, should be classified under heading 2401 20 90. They relied on the nature and process of their activity, relevant HSN explanatory notes, and previous judicial pronouncements, specifically mentioning the "Pachiappa Chettiar case." They sought reclassification based on these factors. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, did not present any arguments recorded in the provided judgment. The judgment states that the order impugned and the order of the learned Single Judge were set aside in view of an order made in WA(MD)No.746 of 2025.