Specific tariff entries prevail over Chapter 30 for cotton and gauze goods supplied to institutions, defeating duty and penalty.

Specific tariff entries prevailed over Chapter 30 for absorbent cotton wool, carded cotton, handloom gauze cloth and handloom bandage cloth. The goods were not impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances, and supplies to hospitals and other institutional buyers did not amount to retail sale or create a retail-package classification. IP markings only indicated conformity with pharmacopoeial standards and did not make the goods medicated. The goods were therefore classified under the relevant textile headings, not Chapter 30. Once the department's classification failed, the duty demand fell with it, and the penalty also could not survive because the dispute was bona fide and there was no adequate basis for suppression or intent to evade.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether absorbent cotton wool and carded cotton were correctly classifiable under Chapter 30 as medicated or retail-packed medical goods, or under the specific textile headings for absorbent cotton wool and carded cotton; (ii) whether handloom gauze cloth and handloom bandage cloth were classifiable under Chapter 30 or under the relevant textile headings; (iii) whether the duty demand and penalty could survive once the classification adopted by the department was found unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether absorbent cotton wool and carded cotton were correctly classifiable under Chapter 30 as medicated or retail-packed medical goods, or under the specific textile headings for absorbent cotton wool and carded cotton.

Analysis: The goods were not impregnated or coated with pharmaceutical substances. The tariff itself contained specific entries for absorbent cotton wool under Chapter Sub-Heading 5601 21 10 and for cotton carded under Chapter Sub-Heading 5203 00 00. The broad description in Chapter 30 could not displace these specific entries. The record also showed that the goods were supplied mainly to hospitals, defence establishments and other institutional buyers, with markings such as hospital supply and not for sale. On the definitions of retail package and retail sale under the packaged commodities rules, such supplies to institutional consumers did not amount to retail sale. The marking of IP on the packs only indicated conformity with pharmacopoeial standards and did not make the goods medicated or pharmaceutical.

Conclusion: The classification under Chapter 30 was not sustainable. Absorbent cotton wool was held classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading 5601 21 10 and carded cotton under Chapter Sub-Heading 5203 00 00, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether handloom gauze cloth and handloom bandage cloth were classifiable under Chapter 30 or under the relevant textile headings.

Analysis: The goods were found to be woven textile articles in running lengths, not sterilized and not coated or impregnated with pharmaceutical substances. Their nomenclature and nature placed them within the textile section, and the general medical-heading logic of Chapter 30 could not override the more appropriate textile classification. The packing and institutional supply pattern also did not convert them into retail medical goods.

Conclusion: Handloom gauze cloth and handloom bandage cloth were not classifiable under Chapter 30 and were held to fall under the appropriate textile headings, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the duty demand and penalty could survive once the department's classification was rejected.

Analysis: The demand had been built on the chapter 30 classification. Once that classification failed, the basis for the demand was displaced. The matter was found to be a bona fide classification dispute, with no adequate basis to sustain allegations of suppression or intent to evade. In such circumstances, the penalty could not stand.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The goods were held to be classifiable under their specific textile headings and not under Chapter 30, and the consequential duty and penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff contains a specific entry covering the goods by name, that specific entry prevails over a broader medical or residuary description, and institutional supplies not meant for retail sale do not satisfy the retail-package condition for Chapter 30.

---