Prior classification ruling in the assessee's own case governed Herbonic's tariff heading, defeating the Revenue's challenge.

Herbonic was held correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 20.01 of the Central Excise Tariff because an earlier Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case on the same product had neither been stayed nor set aside and therefore continued to govern the dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following that binding classification view and in reversing the Assistant Commissioner's classification under Sub-heading 2108.99, with the consequential duty and penalty demand not sustained. The Revenue's challenge to the classification failed and the appellate order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Classification of the product Herbonic under the Central Excise Tariff and whether the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)' order allowing classification under Chapter Heading 20.01 could succeed.

Analysis: The product had already been held in the assessee's own earlier case to fall under Chapter Heading 20.01 of the Central Excise Tariff. That earlier Tribunal order had neither been stayed nor set aside by the Supreme Court, and therefore continued to govern the classification dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following that decision while reversing the Assistant Commissioner's classification under Sub-heading 2108.99 and the consequential duty and penalty demand.

Conclusion: The product Herbonic was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 20.01, and the Revenue's challenge to the classification failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An earlier decision on classification in the assessee's own case, unless stayed or reversed, should be followed and will govern the subsequent dispute on the same product.

---