Completed classification cannot be reopened without new facts or law; Tariff Item 68 treatment and captive exemption were upheld.

A completed classification adjudication cannot be reopened by the same authority through a fresh show cause notice absent any change in law or material facts; a later reassessment on the same issue is merely a change of opinion and is not sustainable. The goods were treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 68, with captive-consumption exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. upheld. However, they were not accepted as articles of plastics for Notification No. 182/82-C.E., so that exemption was unavailable. The result was restoration of the Tariff Item 68 classification and the captive-consumption benefit, while denial of the plastics exemption was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assistant Collector could reopen and re-adjudicate the classification of 7-ply laminated sheets by a second show cause notice and thereby alter the earlier classification, and (ii) whether 3-ply, 5-ply and 7-ply laminated films and plastic multilaminated collapsible tubes were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., while also determining whether Notification No. 182/82-C.E. applied.

Issue (i): whether the Assistant Collector could reopen and re-adjudicate the classification of 7-ply laminated sheets by a second show cause notice and thereby alter the earlier classification.

Analysis: The earlier adjudication had already classified the goods under Tariff Item 68, and there was no intervening change in law or new factual basis justifying a fresh classification exercise. A later reassessment on the same issue by the same authority amounted to a mere change of opinion. The proper course, if the Revenue disputed the original view, was to challenge it in appeal rather than undertake a second adjudication on the same matter.

Conclusion: The reclassification and readjudication were not sustainable, and the later orders based on that exercise could not stand.

Issue (ii): whether 3-ply, 5-ply and 7-ply laminated films and plastic multilaminated collapsible tubes were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., while also determining whether Notification No. 182/82-C.E. applied.

Analysis: The goods were not accepted as articles of plastics for the purpose of Notification No. 182/82-C.E., because the relevant explanation required the goods to answer that description in the commercial and legal sense applied by the Court. The products were treated as falling under Tariff Item 68, and the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E. for captive consumption had already been extended and was found to be correct. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E. was not available.

Conclusion: The goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., but not under Notification No. 182/82-C.E.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in substance by restoring classification under Tariff Item 68 and retaining captive-consumption exemption, while denying the claim under the plastics exemption notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A completed adjudication on classification cannot be reopened by the same authority through a fresh show cause notice in the absence of any change in law or material facts, and goods not commercially answerable as articles of plastics do not qualify for exemption meant for such articles.

---