Consequential duty demand failed after the classification dispute had already been decided for the assessee and remained unstayed.

Consequential duty demand based on a classification dispute was not sustained where the classification issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier proceedings and that view was followed in the connected matter. In the absence of any stay by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal declined to keep the matter in abeyance merely because further appeals were proposed or pending. The Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the duty demand was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty raised consequentially on the basis of the classification dispute was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The classification issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier proceedings, and that decision was followed in the connected matter. There was no stay of operation of those earlier orders by the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal declined to keep the matter in abeyance on the mere statement that further appeals were proposed or pending.

Conclusion: The consequential demand of duty could not be sustained and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---