Classification by untested departmental opinion cannot stand where binding precedent already rejects it on the same factual basis.

The classification dispute concerned maize-starch-based products, with the department treating them as modified starch under Heading 35.05 rather than unmodified starch under Heading 11.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The tribunal noted that the issue was already covered by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case, where a departmental Chemical Examiner's opinion could not be sustained because it was not supported by empirical testing or examination of the manufacturing process. As no rectification of those defects was shown for the later period, the same reasoning applied and the departmental classification was not accepted. The appeal was allowed and the tax demand did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed maize-starch-based products were classifiable as unmodified starch under Heading 11.03 or as modified starch under Heading 35.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The classification dispute was held to be covered by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case. The earlier ruling had found that an order based on the departmental Chemical Examiner's report could not be sustained where the opinion was given without empirical testing or examination of the manufacturing process. The same basis continued to apply for the later period in dispute, and no rectification of the defects noted earlier was shown.

Conclusion: The products were not to be classified as modified starch under Heading 35.05 on the basis adopted by the department; the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand did not survive, and the assessee obtained the consequential relief flowing from allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification based solely on an untested departmental opinion, without empirical examination of the goods or the manufacturing process, cannot be sustained when the issue is already covered by binding precedent on the same factual basis.

---