Approved classification cannot be retrospectively reopened without suppression, and technical evidence is required for reclassification.

An approved classification list based on full disclosure could not be displaced retrospectively by a later departmental change of view in the absence of suppression, misdeclaration, or valid invocation of the extended period; the demand was therefore unsustainable. Where classification depended on the technical nature and use of the product, the authority could not rely on personal opinion alone and had to obtain expert evidence before final reclassification. The dispute was remanded for fresh consideration with technical material, and the earlier approved classification could not be upset without cogent evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the department could confirm differential duty on a change in classification despite earlier approval of the classification list and absence of misdeclaration. (ii) Whether the disputed product could be finally classified without technical expert evidence, and whether the matter required remand for de novo consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the department could confirm differential duty on a change in classification despite earlier approval of the classification list and absence of misdeclaration.

Analysis: The classification list had earlier been accepted by the department, and the product details had been disclosed at the stage of approval. The dispute was therefore treated as a change of opinion rather than a case of suppression or misdeclaration. In the absence of invocation of the extended period and without material to show deliberate non-disclosure, retrospective confirmation of demand was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained retrospectively on the basis of a mere change in departmental view; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed product could be finally classified without technical expert evidence, and whether the matter required remand for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The competing descriptions of the product turned on its technical functioning and use. The record did not contain expert opinion to establish the departmental classification, and the original approval had been granted without such verification. The authority could not substitute personal opinion for technical evidence, and proper classification required independent expert material and reconsideration in accordance with natural justice.

Conclusion: The classification dispute required de novo examination after obtaining technical expert opinion, and the matter was remanded; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The demand was set aside and the classification question was sent back for fresh decision after obtaining expert evidence, while recognising that the department had not discharged the burden required to upset the earlier approved classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a classification list has earlier been approved on full disclosure, a subsequent contrary view cannot justify retrospective duty demand or final reclassification without cogent technical evidence and satisfaction of the conditions for invoking the extended period.

---