Tariff classification must follow entries in force for each period, with technical evidence deciding the later classification.

Classification of excisable goods must be made by reference to the tariff entries in force during the relevant period. For 12-7-1972 to 15-3-1976, Tariff Item 22F had not yet been introduced, so the goods were held classifiable under Tariff Item 59. For the later period after 16-3-1976, the more reliable Deputy Chief Chemist report prevailed over the NPL report, and the goods were classified under Tariff Item 22F as narrow strips woven entirely with glass filament yarns. The appeal thus succeeded only for the earlier period and failed for the later period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the subject goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 59 for the period up to 15-3-1976, when Tariff Item 22F had not yet been introduced; and (ii) whether, for the subsequent period, the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 22F or Tariff Item 59.

Issue (i): whether the subject goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 59 for the period up to 15-3-1976, when Tariff Item 22F had not yet been introduced.

Analysis: Tariff Item 22F came into existence only on 16-3-1976. For the earlier period, there was no corresponding competing entry supporting classification under Item 22F, and the classification had to be determined on the basis of the entries then in force.

Conclusion: The subject goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 59 for the period from 12-7-1972 to 15-3-1976, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether, for the subsequent period, the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 22F or Tariff Item 59.

Analysis: For the remaining period, the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist was found more reliable than the National Physical Laboratory report. The goods were described as narrow strips woven entirely with glass filament yarns, and the cited precedent was held inapplicable because the applicability of Tariff Item 22F was not in issue there.

Conclusion: For the period after 16-3-1976, the subject product fell under Tariff Item 22F, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only for the earlier period and failed for the later period, resulting in a partial allowance of the Revenue's challenge to classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of excisable goods must be determined with reference to the tariff entries in force during the relevant period, and a later-introduced tariff item cannot govern an earlier period; for the subsequent period, the more reliable technical evidence will control classification.

---