Rule 57CC deposit demand rejected where prior finding held no manufacture and classified goods under Chapter Heading 2108.99.

A detention order requiring deposit of 8% of value under Rule 57CC could not stand where the Tribunal had already found that the process did not amount to manufacture and had classified the goods under Chapter Heading 2108.99. In that context, treating the goods as final products attracting a nil duty rate for insisting on the deposit was inconsistent with the earlier final finding. The demand was therefore not a correct reading of the prior decision, and the miscellaneous application succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order demanding deposit of 8% of the value under Rule 57CC could be sustained after the Tribunal had already held that there was no manufacture and had classified the goods under Chapter Heading 2108.99.

Analysis: The Tribunal had earlier recorded a categorical finding that the process did not amount to manufacture and that the item fell under Chapter Heading 2108.99. In that background, treating the goods as final products carrying a nil rate of duty for the purpose of insisting on a deposit of 8% of the value was inconsistent with the earlier final order. The demand for deposit was therefore not a correct reading of the Tribunal's prior decision.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained and the miscellaneous application succeeded in favour of the appellant.

---