Tariff classification requires reliable evidence; an inconclusive test report cannot sustain a change in classification.

In a tariff classification dispute over product P-100, an inconclusive departmental test report and unresolved laboratory uncertainty could not justify shifting classification to Heading 3824. The record showed that further clarification from the chemical examiner was required, yet the lower authority proceeded without obtaining it. The Revenue bore the burden of proving the proposed classification, and the materials on record did not satisfactorily discharge that burden. The proposed change in classification was therefore not sustained, and the classification dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product P-100 was correctly classifiable under Heading 3824 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or whether the classification claimed under Heading 3823 was sustainable, and whether the Revenue discharged the burden of proving the proposed change in classification.

Analysis: The test report itself was not final and indicated that further clarification was required from the chemical examiner. The record showed uncertainty at the laboratory level regarding the exact classification, yet the lower authority proceeded to decide the matter without obtaining the necessary clarification. In a classification dispute of this nature, the onus lay on the Revenue to establish the proposed classification with sufficient evidence, and the materials on record did not satisfactorily discharge that burden.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 3824 was not upheld and the Revenue's case failed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the departmental test report is inconclusive and further chemical clarification is required, a classification change cannot be sustained unless the Revenue independently proves the proposed classification with reliable evidence.

---