Tariff classification of stainless steel bright bars must follow the specific entry, with ambiguity resolved for the assessee.

Stainless steel bright bars of austenitic variety were held classifiable under the separate stainless steel entry in sub-serial No. 3803, not under the broader bright steel bars and shafting entry in sub-serial No. 3606. The schedule distinguished stainless steel articles from ordinary bright steel bars, and the later amendment reinforcing that distinction supported the earlier classification. Applying the settled rule that a specifically described product cannot be moved into a general entry, and that any reasonable ambiguity in classification must be resolved in favour of the assessee, the contrary classification was rejected. The impugned order was set aside and the petitioners were held entitled to the differential drawback.

---

---

Issues: Whether "Stainless Steel Bright Bars of Austenitic Variety" were classifiable under sub-serial No. 3803 of the drawback schedule under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1972, rather than under sub-serial No. 3606.

Analysis: The goods were treated differently in the drawback schedule from ordinary bright steel bars and shafting, both in classification and in rate of drawback. The schedule, as it stood at the relevant time, placed articles made of stainless steel of austenitic variety under the separate stainless steel entry, while sub-serial No. 3606 covered bright steel bars and shafting. The subsequent amendment, which separately dealt with stainless steel and left the earlier stainless steel entry vacant, supported the conclusion that stainless steel bright bars had earlier been kept distinct from ordinary bright steel bars. Where two views on classification are possible, the interpretation favourable to the assessee must be adopted.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under sub-serial No. 3803, and the contrary classification under sub-serial No. 3606 was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the petitioners were held entitled to the differential drawback as determined by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff classification, a product specifically described in a separate entry cannot be forced into a broader general entry, and if two interpretations are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the assessee must prevail.

---