Classification of engine oil saver under anti-knock preparation heading defeated the differential duty demand.

The product "oil saver of engine" was treated as classifiable under CET sub-heading 38.11 as an anti-knock preparation, not under Chapter 27, because an earlier final order had already accepted that classification position. On that basis, the contrary departmental classification could not be used to sustain a differential duty demand, and the demand was held unsustainable. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product "oil saver of engine" was correctly classifiable under Chapter 27 or under CET sub-heading 38.11, and whether the differential duty demand could survive once the classification issue had been decided in favour of the assessee.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that an earlier final order had already accepted the assessee's contention that the product fell under CET sub-heading 38.11 as an anti-knock preparation and had rejected the Department's view that it belonged to Chapter 27. In view of that binding classification finding, the demand for differential duty based on the contrary classification could not stand.

Conclusion: The classification was held to be under CET sub-heading 38.11 and the demand for differential duty was not sustainable; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---