Classification under Chapter 30.03 upheld; duty demand based solely on rejected Heading 33.06 classification was set aside.

DESENT Toothpaste was held classifiable under Chapter Heading 30.03 rather than Heading 33.06, as the Tribunal had already settled the classification issue in favour of the assessee. Because the duty demand in the present matter depended entirely on the rejected Heading 33.06 classification, it could not be sustained once the classification question had been concluded. The demand was therefore set aside as unsustainable, and consequential relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether "DESENT Toothpaste" was classifiable under Heading 33.06 or Chapter Heading 30.03, and whether the duty demand based solely on the disputed classification could be sustained.

Analysis: The product's classification had already been settled by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee under Chapter Heading 30.03. The duty demand in the present matter rested entirely on classification under Heading 33.06, which had not been accepted. Once the classification issue stood concluded in favour of the assessee, the confirmed demand lost its .

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Chapter Heading 30.03, not under Heading 33.06, and the duty demand was set aside as unsustainable, with consequential relief granted to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the disputed demand was entirely dependent on a classification issue already decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a duty demand is founded solely on a classification that has been authoritatively rejected, the demand cannot be sustained.

---