Specific tariff classification and quantified reclassification demand upheld; corrigendum did not create a fresh time-bar issue.

Goods classifiable under a specific tariff entry cannot be placed in the residuary entry, and the settled ratio was applied to uphold classification under Tariff Item 52 against the assessee. A notice that initiates reclassification proceedings can validly support a later quantified duty demand for short levy, and a corrigendum that only specifies the amount or corrects the statutory reference does not necessarily create a fresh proceeding or bar the demand by limitation. On that basis, the challenge on classification and time-bar failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods were correctly classified under Tariff Item 52 of the erstwhile Tariff instead of the residuary item. (ii) Whether the demand of differential duty was barred by time because the earlier notices were only for reclassification and the quantification came later by corrigendum.

Issue (i): Whether the goods were correctly classified under Tariff Item 52 of the erstwhile Tariff instead of the residuary item.

Analysis: The classification question was already settled by the Supreme Court and followed by the Tribunal. The Court applied that settled ratio and held that the goods answered the description attracting the specific tariff item. Where a commodity is classifiable under a specific entry, it cannot be relegated to the residuary entry.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Item 52 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of differential duty was barred by time because the earlier notices were only for reclassification and the quantification came later by corrigendum.

Analysis: The Court found that the earlier notices validly initiated proceedings for reclassification and that the corrigendum only supplied the quantification and corrected the statutory reference. The demand was treated as one arising from short levy consequent upon reclassification, not as a fresh demand starting only from the corrigendum date. The Court also relied on the principle that an incorrect statutory label or absence of quantified amount in the original notice does not vitiate the demand where the assessee was put to notice of the liability.

Conclusion: The demand was held not to be time-barred, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed on both classification and limitation, while the Revenue succeeded in sustaining the duty demand on the basis of reclassification and short levy.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice proposing reclassification can validly support a later quantified duty demand for short levy, and a corrigendum that merely specifies the amount or corrects the statutory provision does not necessarily create a fresh, time-barred proceeding; a commodity falling under a specific tariff entry cannot be shifted to the residuary entry.

---