Central excise classification error did not alter duty liability; reclassification under Item 68 remained effective from the start.

The product was treated as dutiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff from the date of production, because the earlier classification under Item 14E was only an error and its correction by reclassification did not change the duty liability. Classification and reclassification under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were held not to require intervention by the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Central Government. The departmental view was upheld, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product was chargeable to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff from the date of its production, and whether the initial mistaken classification and subsequent reclassification affected that liability.

Analysis: The record showed no dispute that the product fell under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The earlier classification under Item 14E was treated as an error, and its correction by reclassification under Item 68 did not alter the duty position. The order also held that classification and reclassification under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, did not require intervention by the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Central Government.

Conclusion: The product was rightly held dutiable under Item 68 from the beginning, and the challenge to the departmental view failed.

---