Product classification must follow binding prior findings; contrary sales tax treatment of "Swad" required fresh reconsideration.

The product's character for sales tax rate purposes had to be assessed by reference to its essential nature, and a prior Division Bench finding that "Swad" was an ayurvedic medicine could not be ignored. Because that binding pronouncement existed, the contrary classification as confectionery was not sustained without fresh consideration of the earlier ruling and any other relevant authority. The classification order was therefore set aside for reconsideration, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination in accordance with the prior decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product "Swad" was liable to be classified as an ayurvedic medicine or as a confectionery for sales tax purposes, and whether the impugned classification order required interference and reconsideration.

Analysis: The product's character had to be determined for rate purposes under the sales tax schedule. A prior Division Bench decision had already recorded a finding that "Swad" was an ayurvedic medicine, though that decision arose in a different statutory context. In view of that binding pronouncement, the classification could not be sustained without fresh consideration of the matter in the light of the earlier decision and any other relevant authority.

Conclusion: The classification treating "Swad" as confectionery was not sustained, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination in accordance with the earlier Division Bench ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prior binding decision has determined the essential character of a product, the taxing authority must reconsider the classification in that light and cannot maintain a contrary classification without fresh adjudication.

---