Specific tariff classification overrides the residuary entry, and an approved classification list limits retrospective duty demand.

Specific tariff classification prevails over the residuary entry where stranded steel wires continue to answer the description in Tariff Item 26AA(ia); the text states that stranding does not create a new and distinct article, and the burden to justify resort to the residuary item lies on the Department. It further notes that a duty demand for an earlier period cannot be sustained after approval of the classification list, absent clandestine removal or another lawful basis to reopen the approved position, so the demand is described as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether galvanised and ungalvanised stranded steel wires were classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) or under the residuary Tariff Item 68; (ii) whether the demand raised for the period 1-3-1975 to 31-3-1980 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether galvanised and ungalvanised stranded steel wires were classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) or under the residuary Tariff Item 68.

Analysis: The approved classification list had placed steel wires, including stranded steel wire, under Item 26AA(ia). Tariff Item 26AA(ia) specifically covered wires and a wide range of iron and steel products, while Item 68 was only residuary and could be invoked only if the goods did not fall under any other item. The process of stranding did not bring into existence a new and different article with a distinctive name, character or use. The record also showed no material to justify shifting the goods to the residuary entry, and the burden to support such reclassification lay on the Department.

Conclusion: The goods remained classifiable under Tariff Item 26AA(ia) and not under Tariff Item 68, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised for the period 1-3-1975 to 31-3-1980 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand was issued after the classification list had already been approved, there was no allegation of clandestine removal, and no fresh basis was shown to sustain retrospective demand for the entire period claimed. In the circumstances, the extended retrospective demand could not be supported.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the Department was unsustainable and the consequential demand could not be maintained, so the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A residuary excise entry cannot be applied where the goods continue to fall within a specific tariff item, and a retrospective duty demand cannot be sustained in the absence of a lawful basis for reopening an approved classification for the relevant period.

---