Tariff classification cannot be reopened by a fresh notice beyond limitation; true nature of goods prevails over description.

A fresh show cause notice seeking to reopen an earlier tariff classification was held impermissible because the authorities attempted to bypass prior adjudications and acted beyond the statutory limitation period governing revisional action. The Court also accepted that the product, on its physical characteristics and test reports, belonged in the lower tariff item, and that the assessee's description could not override the true excisable nature of the goods. In the absence of any statutory change, repeated attempts to reopen the same classification issue were unsustainable, and the impugned notice and proposed inquiry were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice was ultra vires and unwarranted in law. (ii) Whether the product was rightly classifiable under the lower tariff item and whether the attempted reclassification could be reopened after prior adjudications.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice was ultra vires and unwarranted in law.

Analysis: The notice sought to reopen a classification that had already been decided in the petitioners' favour by earlier orders. The Court held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition on these facts, because the authorities were attempting to circumvent the earlier adjudication by a fresh notice rather than by lawful revision. Since the matter involved non-levy arising from a proposed reclassification, the case fell within the revisional scheme requiring action within the limitation period prescribed by the statute. The notice was issued beyond that period.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was ultra vires and unwarranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the product was rightly classifiable under the lower tariff item and whether the attempted reclassification could be reopened after prior adjudications.

Analysis: On the evidence, the product was found to be uneven in shape, size, thickness and cross-section, and the manufacturing process showed no features supporting the higher classification. The Court accepted the earlier adjudications and the supporting test reports, and held that a mere mis-description by the assessee could not control the true excisable character of the product. In the absence of any statutory change, and in view of the binding effect of the prior orders, repeated attempts to reopen the same issue were impermissible.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable under the lower tariff item, and the attempted reclassification was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned notice and proposed inquiry were quashed, and the petitioners obtained costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff classification has already been concluded by competent authority, a fresh attempt to reopen the same issue through a show cause notice is impermissible if it is an exercise of revisional power beyond the statutory period of limitation; excise duty must follow the true nature of the goods, not an erroneous description used by the assessee.

---