{"id":135441,"date":"2004-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004"},"modified":"2016-07-17T11:28:18","modified_gmt":"2016-07-17T05:58:18","slug":"collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N. Variava, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4502-4503 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nCollector of Central Excise, Calcutta\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s Alnoori Tobacco Products and Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/07\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. VARIAVA &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J<\/p>\n<p>\tThese appeals are directed against the common judgment of the<br \/>\nCustoms, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Branch,<br \/>\nCalcutta  (in short the &#8216;CEGAT&#8217;) which is being assailed by the<br \/>\nCentral Excise authorities. By the impugned judgment, CEGAT held that<br \/>\ntobacco powder obtained by crushing of tobacco leaves, stems, stalks<br \/>\nand butts are classifiable under tariff sub-heading 2401.00 as un-<br \/>\nmanufactured tobacco and not classifiable as manufactured tobacco<br \/>\nunder sub-heading 2404.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff<br \/>\nAct, 1985 (in short the &#8216;Tariff Act&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondents are having licence under the Central Excise and<br \/>\nSalt Act, 1944 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;).  They are engaged in manufacture<br \/>\nof &#8216;Gul&#8217;. While scrutinizing the records, the Assistant Collector of<br \/>\nCentral Excise, Barrackpore Division, Calcutta noticed that during the<br \/>\nperiod from 1.2.90 to 31.7.90 manufactured tobacco powder\/dust fall<br \/>\nunder sub-heading 2404.90 of the schedule to the  &#8216;Tariff Act&#8217;.  He<br \/>\nfelt that without any justifiable reason, duty involving Rs.8,871.65<br \/>\n(both basic and special) was not paid, statutory records were not<br \/>\nmaintained, thereby contravening provisions of Rules 174, 9(1), 52,<br \/>\n52A, 54 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the<br \/>\n&#8216;Rules&#8217;).  Show cause notice was issued on 30.1.1991 proposing to levy<br \/>\nthe demand from 1.8.90 to 31.12.1990.  Similarly show cause notices<br \/>\nwere also issued for the demands for the period from 1.1.1991 to<br \/>\n31.5.1991 and from 1.6.1991 to 24.7.1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  The Superintendent of Central Excise of the concerned Range<br \/>\nissued show cause cum demand notice.  After hearing the respondents<br \/>\nthe Assistant Collector held that tobacco powder\/dust emerging by<br \/>\ncrushing of un-manufactured tobacco leaves is a distinct product<br \/>\nhaving distinct name and character and fall under sub-heading 2404.90.<br \/>\nThe demands were confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Appeals were preferred before the Collector of Central Excise<br \/>\n(Appeals), Calcutta along with an application for stay. The stay<br \/>\napplication was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) holding that no<br \/>\ncase for stay of realization of duty demanded was made out. Since the<br \/>\nstay order was not complied with by depositing the amount of duty<br \/>\ndemanded, the appeals were dismissed for non compliance of Section<br \/>\n35(F) of the Act. Similar was the position in respect of demands<br \/>\nraised against both the  respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondents preferred appeals before the CEGAT. As noted<br \/>\nabove, the CEGAT was of the view that the issue involved related to<br \/>\nthe tariff sub-heading applicable to the product.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents who were appellants before the CEGAT submitted<br \/>\nthat the issue stood decided in view of the decisions rendered in two<br \/>\ncases, i.e., <a href=\"\/doc\/419261\/\">Sree Biswa Vijaya Industries vs. C.C.E. Bhubneshwar<\/a> (1997<br \/>\n(96) ELT 712 (Tribunal) and Shamsuddin Akbar Khan &amp; Co. vs.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Central Excise, BBSR  (Order  no. A-888\/Cal\/97 dt.<br \/>\n29.7.1997).\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise authorities<br \/>\nsubmitted that in Shree Chand Agarwal v. Collector of Central Excise<br \/>\n(1990 (48) ELT 115  (Tribunal) it was categorically held that tobacco<br \/>\npowder in various forms and combinations falls in the manufactured<br \/>\ncategory and therefore tobacco powder is classifiable under tariff<br \/>\nsub-heading 2404.90. The Tribunal noted that issue in Shree Chand&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra) related to classification of tobacco dust and not of<br \/>\ntobacco powder and what was stated in paragraph 16 in the said case<br \/>\nwas not a binding precedent and was  merely in the nature of obiter<br \/>\ndictum. However, it held that other two decisions relied upon by the<br \/>\npresent respondents were directly in issue. Accordingly, the appeals<br \/>\nwere allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that<br \/>\nthe only question that the CEGAT could have decided related to the<br \/>\npropriety of dismissal of the appeals by the Collector (Appeals) when<br \/>\nthere was non compliance of the order in terms of Section 35(F) of the<br \/>\nAct.  It could not have gone into the merits. Even otherwise when<br \/>\nthere is a categorical finding recorded by the adjudicating authority<br \/>\nthat the tobacco powder was a different commercial commodity and an<br \/>\narticle having distinct name and character, this factual finding could<br \/>\nnot have been disturbed by the CEGAT without any material to the<br \/>\ncontrary. The decisions in the two cases relied upon by the CEGAT were<br \/>\nbased on different factual premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted<br \/>\nthat the factual position was identical and, therefore, the CEGAT was<br \/>\njustified in placing reliance on the two decisions referred to above<br \/>\nand to hold that tobacco powder was not a different product from<br \/>\ntobacco leaves.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is undisputed that the First appeals filed by the present<br \/>\nrespondents were dismissed on the ground of non compliance with the<br \/>\nrequirements of Section 35(F) of the Act.  The CEGAT should have<br \/>\nprimarily considered that aspect. No finding has been recorded by the<br \/>\nCEGAT.  Additionally, we find that unlike the two cases relied upon by<br \/>\nthe CEGAT there was a categorical finding recorded on facts by the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority that the tobacco powder obtained by crushing of<br \/>\nun-manufactured tobacco leaves is a different commercial product<br \/>\nhaving a distinct name and character.  In the cases relied upon by the<br \/>\nCEGAT it was categorically noticed that there was no material placed<br \/>\nby the Central Excise authorities to show that a different commercial<br \/>\nproduct had come into existence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing<br \/>\nas to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the<br \/>\ndecision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are<br \/>\nneither to be read as Euclid&#8217;s theorems nor as provisions of the<br \/>\nstatute and that too taken out of their context. These observations<br \/>\nmust be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated.<br \/>\nJudgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret<br \/>\nwords, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary<br \/>\nfor judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is<br \/>\nmeant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do<br \/>\nnot interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words<br \/>\nare not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd.<br \/>\nV. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The matter cannot, of course, be<br \/>\nsettled merely by treating the ipsissima<br \/>\nvertra of Willes, J as though they were<br \/>\npart of an Act of Parliament and<br \/>\napplying the rules of interpretation<br \/>\nappropriate thereto. This is not to<br \/>\ndetract from the great weight to be<br \/>\ngiven to the language actually used by<br \/>\nthat most distinguished judge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord<br \/>\nReid said, &#8220;Lord Atkin&#8217;s speech&#8230;..is not to be treated as if it was<br \/>\na statute definition It will require qualification in new<br \/>\ncircumstances.&#8221; Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: &#8220;One must<br \/>\nnot, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of  Russell L.J. as<br \/>\nif it were an Act of Parliament.&#8221; And, in Herrington v. British<br \/>\nRailways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;There is always peril in treating<br \/>\nthe words of a speech or judgment as<br \/>\nthough they are words in a legislative<br \/>\nenactment, and it is to be remembered<br \/>\nthat judicial utterances made in the<br \/>\nsetting of the facts of a particular<br \/>\ncase.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tCircumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may<br \/>\nmake a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal<br \/>\nof cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying<br \/>\nprecedents have become locus classicus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Each case depends on its own<br \/>\nfacts and a close similarity between<br \/>\none case and another is not enough<br \/>\nbecause even a single significant<br \/>\ndetail may alter the entire aspect, in<br \/>\ndeciding such cases, one should avoid<br \/>\nthe temptation to decide cases (as<br \/>\nsaid by Cordozo) by matching the<br \/>\ncolour of one case against the colour<br \/>\nof another. To decide therefore, on<br \/>\nwhich side of the line a case falls,<br \/>\nthe broad resemblance to another case<br \/>\nis not at all decisive.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t***\t\t***\t\t***<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Precedent should be followed<br \/>\nonly so far as it marks the path of<br \/>\njustice, but you must cut the dead wood<br \/>\nand trim off the side branches else you<br \/>\nwill find yourself lost in thickets and<br \/>\nbranches. My plea is to keep the path<br \/>\nto justice clear of obstructions which<br \/>\ncould impede it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the undisputed position that the CEGAT did not<br \/>\nconsider the relevant aspects and proceeded to decide the appeals on<br \/>\nmerits without examining the propriety of dismissal of appeals by the<br \/>\nCollector (Appeals) for non compliance with the requirements of<br \/>\nSection 35(F) of the Act,  the impugned judgments  are unsustainable<br \/>\nand are set aside. We remit the matter back to the CEGAT for<br \/>\nadjudication afresh in accordance with law. The appeals are<br \/>\naccordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004 Author: Arijit Pasayat Bench: S.N. Variava, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4502-4503 of 1998 PETITIONER: Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta RESPONDENT: M\/s Alnoori Tobacco Products and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/07\/2004 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And ... on 21 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And ... on 21 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-17T05:58:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\\\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T05:58:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1468,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\",\"name\":\"Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs M\\\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And ... on 21 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T05:58:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\\\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And ... on 21 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And ... on 21 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-17T05:58:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T05:58:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004"},"wordCount":1468,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004","name":"Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And ... on 21 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T05:58:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-ms-alnoori-tobacco-products-and-on-21-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S Alnoori Tobacco Products And &#8230; on 21 July, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135441","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}