Tariff notification interpretation controls classification of plunger and brake piston goods, with jurisdictional High Court view prevailing.

Classification of plunger or brake piston goods depended on the construction of Item 6 in Notification No. 99/71, as amended, and whether the earlier High Court interpretation in Southern Automatic Industries controlled the later notification entries. The Tribunal held that amended entries must be read in the context of the original exemption scheme and that, in the absence of any contrary decision of the Supreme Court or another High Court, the jurisdictional High Court's view must be followed. On that basis, the departmental claim that the goods were dutiable as pistons was rejected and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods described as plunger or brake piston were classifiable as piston under Tariff Item 34A and liable to duty under the relevant exemption notifications.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the construction of Item 6 in Notification No. 99/71 as amended by Notifications No. 95/72 and 14/75. The Tribunal noted that the Madras High Court had already interpreted the same notification scheme in Southern Automatic Industries and held that the later additions to Item 6 had to be read in the context of the original entry. The Tribunal also held that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had to be followed in the absence of any contrary decision of the Supreme Court or another High Court. Since the earlier High Court ruling supported the assessee's interpretation and the Revenue had not shown any contrary binding authority, the departmental contention that the goods were dutiable as pistons was not accepted.

Conclusion: The goods were not held dutiable as pistons under the notification scheme, and the appeal by the Revenue failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a contrary binding higher-court decision, the interpretation placed by the jurisdictional High Court on a tariff notification must be followed by the Tribunal.

---