Tariff classification follows binding precedent when spent sulphuric acid is placed under Heading 28.07, not Heading 38.23.

Spent sulphuric acid was treated as classifiable under Heading 28.07 rather than Heading 38.23 because the classification issue had already been settled by a binding Larger Bench precedent. The Court applied that precedent consistently to the product in question and accepted the Revenue's classification under Heading 28.07. The stated principle is that where tariff classification is governed by binding precedent, the same tariff heading must be applied consistently to the relevant product.

---

---

Issues: Whether spent sulphuric acid was classifiable under Heading 28.07 or Heading 38.23.

Analysis: The classification dispute was treated as settled by the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the respondent. On that basis, the Court accepted that spent sulphuric acid fell under Heading 28.07 and not under Heading 38.23.

Conclusion: The classification was held to be under Heading 28.07, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification issue is already settled by binding precedent, the same tariff heading must be applied consistently to the product in question.

---