Classification under sub-heading 3003.30 settled duty demand failed once the earlier view was affirmed and departmental challenge dismissed.

Duty demand could not be sustained once the product was settled as classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 rather than 3304.00. The demand had been confirmed solely because the classification list was approved by the Department, but an earlier Tribunal ruling had already held that Calamine IP and Calamine BP in bulk packings fell under sub-heading 3003.30, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's challenge. With classification finally settled in favour of the assessee, the foundation for the duty demand disappeared.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty survived after the product was held classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 instead of sub-heading 3304.00.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed only on the basis that the classification list was approved by the Department. The earlier Tribunal order had already held that Calamine IP and Calamine BP in bulk packings were classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30, and the Department's appeal against that view had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Once the classification stood settled in favour of the assessee under sub-heading 3003.30, the basis for sustaining the demand no longer survived.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---