Final classification order binds only identified goods; later railway-supplied items were classified under the more specific tariff entry.

An earlier final classification order bound only the two identified goods, Rubber Buffer Spring for Freight Stock and Side Buffer Recoil Spring, so their classification under Heading 4016 could not be reopened and the demand for those items survived. The remaining 26 goods were not covered by that prior order and had to be classified independently; as goods supplied to Railways, Heading 8607 was treated as the more specific entry over Heading 4016. Applying Rules 3(a) and 3(c) of the General Rules for Interpretation, the Tribunal held the 26 goods fell under Heading 8607, so the differential duty, interest, and penalty relating to them were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the two goods, namely Rubber Buffer Spring for Freight Stock and Side Buffer Recoil Spring, continued to be classifiable under Heading 4016 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in view of the earlier final order; (ii) Whether the remaining 26 goods, which were not the subject matter of the earlier classification order, were correctly classifiable under Heading 8607 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the two goods, namely Rubber Buffer Spring for Freight Stock and Side Buffer Recoil Spring, continued to be classifiable under Heading 4016 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in view of the earlier final order.

Analysis: The earlier final order had already settled the classification of these two items. The Tribunal found that those goods were among the six items manufactured during the relevant earlier period and were specifically covered by the prior decision. Since the issue had attained finality, the earlier classification could not be reopened for these two goods.

Conclusion: The two goods remained classifiable under Heading 4016, and the demand in respect of them survived.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining 26 goods, which were not the subject matter of the earlier classification order, were correctly classifiable under Heading 8607 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the remaining 26 items were not manufactured during the period covered by the earlier final order and therefore were not bound by it. Since these goods were supplied to Railways, Heading 8607 was held to provide the more specific description than Heading 4016. The Tribunal also applied Rule 3(a) and Rule 3(c) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and relied on prior similar decisions treating comparable goods as classifiable under Heading 8607.

Conclusion: The 26 goods were classifiable under Heading 8607, and the differential duty, interest, and penalty in relation to them were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The classification dispute was partly resolved in favour of the assessee. The demand was sustained only for the two goods covered by the earlier final order, while relief was granted for the remaining 26 goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier classification decision has attained finality for identified goods, it binds only those goods, and unadjudicated later-manufactured goods must be classified independently by applying the specific-entry-over-general-entry principle and the tariff interpretation rules.

---