M/S.M.U.Mohamed Sulthan And Company vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, M/s.M.U.Mohamed Sultan & Co., challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The appellant sought to reclassify their product, unmanufactured tobacco, under heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff. This reclassification was based on the nature and process adopted, relevant HSN explanatory notes, and judicial pronouncements. The appellant had previously filed a writ petition challenging the authority's order, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. The dispute concerns the classification of unmanufactured tobacco. The judgment mentions that the order impugned in the writ petition and the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside in view of a related order in WA(MD)No.746 of 2025.

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. The reasoning appears to be based on the precedent established in the 'Pachiappa Chettiar case' and the appellant's adherence to the activities approved therein. The ratio decidendi is that if an assessee's activities align with a previously decided case concerning product classification, that classification should be applied. The writ petition and the writ appeal were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant's product, unmanufactured tobacco, should be classified under heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff, considering its nature, processing, HSN explanatory notes, and judicial precedents? (Question of law and fact) The appellant argued that their unmanufactured tobacco, processed in a specific manner, should fall under heading 2401 20 90. They relied on the nature and process adopted, relevant HSN explanatory notes, and prior judicial pronouncements to support their claim for reclassification. The respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their action of passing an order that was challenged by the appellant implies a disagreement with the appellant's proposed classification.