Cross objections and tariff classification were examined, with non-maintainability found and the disputed classification referred to a Larger Bench.

Cross objections were held not maintainable where the respondent had no independent grievance against an order already in its favour, though the filing could be treated as a counter to the departmental appeal on the issues raised. On classification, the competing tariff headings were examined under the General Rules for Interpretation, the composite goods approach, and the essential character test, but the dispute was considered unsettled because rival factual views and Tribunal decisions existed. The matter was therefore not finally resolved on the existing bench strength and was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the memorandum of cross objections filed by the respondent was maintainable. (ii) Whether the classification dispute concerning the impugned products could be finally decided in the present appeal or required reference to a Larger Bench.

Issue (i): Whether the memorandum of cross objections filed by the respondent was maintainable.

Analysis: The respondent had no independent grievance against the impugned order, which was wholly in its favour on the demand. Cross objections were held not to be a substitute for a separate appeal where no statutory grievance exists. The filing could, however, be treated as a counter to the departmental appeal for the limited purpose of considering the respondent's objections to the grounds raised by the Department.

Conclusion: The memorandum of cross objections was not maintainable and was dismissed, though the respondent's submissions were treated as a counter to the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the classification dispute concerning the impugned products could be finally decided in the present appeal or required reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The competing headings were examined in the light of the General Rules for Interpretation, the concept of composite goods, and the test of essential character. The product was found to present a debatable classification question, with rival views supported by different factual appreciations and Tribunal decisions. Since an identical product had also been classified differently by a coordinate bench, the matter was considered fit for authoritative resolution by a Larger Bench rather than final disposal on the existing bench strength.

Conclusion: The classification issue was not finally decided and was referred to a Larger Bench for determination.

Final Conclusion: The cross objections were rejected as not maintainable, and the substantive tariff classification controversy was kept open for decision by a Larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the respondent has no independent grievance against an order already in its favour, a memorandum of cross objections is not maintainable; and where the classification question remains unsettled on conflicting interpretative approaches, reference to a Larger Bench is appropriate instead of final disposal on merits.

---