Classification of runners and risers as rolling stock goods, not waste and scrap, defeats differential duty demand.

Runners and risers were not to be treated uniformly as waste and scrap where the approved classification lists recognised two categories: those fit for rolling and those fit only for melting. Earlier decisions distinguishing runners and risers fit for rolling from scrap supported the assessee's classification. In the absence of any allegation that the goods cleared during the relevant period were unfit for rolling, and given prior approval of the classification lists, the differential duty demand could not be sustained on the basis of an earlier appellate observation. The demand was therefore held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether runners and risers were classifiable as goods fit for rolling under Tariff Item 25(6)(ii) / Heading 7206.20, or as waste and scrap under Tariff Item 25(3)(ii) / Heading 7203.20, and whether the demand for differential duty was sustainable.

Analysis: The approved classification lists recognised two distinct kinds of runners and risers, namely those fit for rolling and those fit only for melting as waste and scrap. The reasoning adopted in earlier decisions distinguishing runners and risers fit for rolling from those usable only as scrap supported the appellant's stand. In the absence of any allegation that the goods cleared during the relevant period were not fit for rolling, and in view of the approval already accorded to the classification lists, the demand could not be sustained merely on the basis of an earlier appellate observation.

Conclusion: The runners and risers in question were not liable to be treated uniformly as waste and scrap, and the differential duty demand was unsustainable. The appeals succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---