Tariff classification of acid resistant clay bricks depends on true nature and composition, not an earlier mistaken description.

Acid resistant clay bricks were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 6901, sub-heading 6901.10, because their nature, composition, manufacturing process, laboratory reports and end-use showed them to be clay bricks rather than fire clay bricks under Chapter Heading 6902, sub-heading 6902.90. The comparative chapter scheme and HSN notes supported that classification. An earlier mistaken classification did not create estoppel or res judicata against claiming the correct tariff entry, because tariff classification must follow the true nature of the goods. The Revenue's challenge failed and the assessee's classification was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acid resistant clay bricks were classifiable under Chapter Heading 6901 and sub-heading 6901.10 or as fire clay bricks under Chapter Heading 6902 and sub-heading 6902.90; (ii) Whether an earlier wrong classification adopted by the assessee created estoppel or res judicata against claiming the correct tariff classification.

Issue (i): Whether acid resistant clay bricks were classifiable under Chapter Heading 6901 and sub-heading 6901.10 or as fire clay bricks under Chapter Heading 6902 and sub-heading 6902.90.

Analysis: Classification depended on the nature, composition, manufacturing process, laboratory reports, and end-use of the goods. The record contained chemical examiner reports and certificates from scientific laboratories showing the characteristics and raw material composition of the bricks. The evidence established that the goods were acid resistant clay bricks and not fire clay bricks. The comparative scheme of the relevant chapter headings and HSN notes also supported the view that goods of this kind fell within the clay brick category rather than fire clay bricks.

Conclusion: The classification under Chapter Heading 6901 and sub-heading 6901.10 was upheld, and classification under Chapter Heading 6902 and sub-heading 6902.90 was rejected, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an earlier wrong classification adopted by the assessee created estoppel or res judicata against claiming the correct tariff classification.

Analysis: A mistaken classification at an earlier stage does not bar a party from asserting the correct statutory classification later. The tariff entry must be applied according to the true nature of the goods, and a prior erroneous description cannot prevent correction when the proper classification is otherwise established.

Conclusion: No estoppel or res judicata operated against the assessee, and the assessee was entitled to claim the correct classification.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, the classification in favour of the assessee was sustained, and the duty demand based on the competing classification did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Correct tariff classification must follow the actual nature, composition, manufacture, and end-use of the goods, and an earlier mistaken classification does not create estoppel or res judicata against claiming the lawful classification.

---