Approved classification list protects only the described product; different cleared goods justified differential excise duty and penalty.

Approved classification lists protect duty only for the product actually covered by the list, not for goods that are materially different. Where cleared goods were of a different thickness and therefore a different product falling under another tariff item, the higher differential excise duty was sustainable. The Cotspun principle that an approved classification list remains effective until challenged did not apply on these facts because the goods cleared were not the same as those described in the list. The demand for differential duty and penalty was upheld, and the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether differential excise duty and penalty could be sustained where the goods actually cleared were of a different thickness and, therefore, a different product from that described in the approved classification list, and whether the principle in Cotspun barred such demand.

Analysis: The approved classification list protected duty only in respect of the product actually covered by that list. The Court held that the goods cleared in the present case were not the same product as shown in the classification list, but a different product falling under another tariff item and attracting higher duty. On those facts, the rule that a duly approved classification list remains effective until challenged had no application, and the demand for differential duty was justified. The findings of the Collector and the Tribunal were thus in favour of the Department.

Conclusion: The demand for differential duty and penalty was upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.

---