Tariff classification of glucometers under heading 9027 prevails where binding precedent on identical goods was ignored.

Glucometers were treated as instruments for physical or chemical analysis and classified under heading 9027, not heading 9018, because their essential function was to draw blood and determine glucose levels; the revenue's contrary classification was rejected. The writ petition was also held maintainable despite an alternate appellate remedy, since the adjudicating authority had ignored an earlier binding Tribunal ruling on identical goods and relegating the assessee to appeal would have been a mere formality. The court therefore applied judicial discipline and stare decisis, and the classification order and consequential demand notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether glucometers were classifiable under heading 9018 or heading 9027 of Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. (ii) Whether the petition should be rejected on the ground of alternate remedy despite an earlier binding classification ruling on identical goods.

Issue (i): Whether glucometers were classifiable under heading 9018 or heading 9027 of Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The goods were held to be instruments for chemical analysis, their essential function being to draw blood and determine glucose levels. Heading 9027, which covers instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis, was treated as the more specific description. Heading 9018 was found inapplicable because it covers instruments used in medical sciences in professional practice, whereas glucometers are generally used by individuals, including at home. The earlier classification view in the identical matter was also followed.

Conclusion: The goods were held to fall under heading 9027, not heading 9018, and the classification adopted by the revenue was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition should be rejected on the ground of alternate remedy despite an earlier binding classification ruling on identical goods.

Analysis: The existence of an alternate appellate remedy was not treated as a bar because the adjudicating authority had not followed an earlier binding decision of the Tribunal on identical facts. Relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal was considered an idle formality, particularly where judicial discipline and stare decisis required adherence to the earlier ruling. The impugned order was also found to be ex facie erroneous in light of the binding precedent.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the alternate remedy objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The classification order and consequential demand notices were set aside, and the goods were held classifiable under heading 9027 with the petitioner receiving relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier binding decision on identical facts has classified the goods under a particular tariff heading, judicial discipline requires the authority to follow it, and a writ court may intervene notwithstanding an alternate statutory remedy if refusal would be a mere formality.

---