Compound products not in primary form may be classified under the tariff heading applicable to their actual character.

Rubber premix, being a compound product and not goods in primary form, was held not classifiable under CET sub-heading 3910.00. The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the assessee's own case on a similar compound, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and followed that reasoning to classify the product under CET sub-heading 4006.90. The classification adopted by the appellate authority was sustained, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rubber premix was classifiable under CET sub-heading 3910.00 as claimed by the Revenue or under CET sub-heading 4006.90 as claimed by the assessee.

Analysis: The product in dispute was a compound, namely rubber premix, and therefore was not goods in primary form. The classification question was governed by the earlier Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case concerning silicone oil compound, where a similar compound was held not to be in primary form. That view had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and the same reasoning was applied to the present product.

Conclusion: Rubber premix was not classifiable under CET sub-heading 3910.00 and was correctly classified under CET sub-heading 4006.90. The Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the appellate authority was sustained, and the dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A compound product that is not in primary form cannot be classified under a tariff heading applicable to material in primary form where prior binding precedent on a similar compound supports the same classification approach.

---