Tariff classification requires full consideration of expert evidence before goods can be treated as rubberised fabric.

Classification of adhesive tapes with a cloth base under Tariff Heading 59.05 depended on whether the goods truly answered the statutory description of "rubberised fabric". The classification was not sustained because the record did not show proper examination of that description, and the competing heading was adopted without adequate consideration of the material on record. The assessee's expert opinion had also been ignored by the lower authorities, even though it was relevant to the classification dispute. The impugned classification was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after considering the expert evidence and the tariff description.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods manufactured as adhesive tapes with a cloth base were correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.05 as rubberised fabric; (ii) Whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication after considering the expert opinion produced by the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the goods manufactured as adhesive tapes with a cloth base were correctly classifiable under Tariff Heading 59.05 as rubberised fabric.

Analysis: The classification could not be sustained without first examining whether the goods answered the description of "rubberised fabric" under Tariff Heading 59.05. The order under challenge did not show that the relevant description had been duly satisfied. The discussion also indicated that the competing classification under Tariff Heading 59.09 had been reached without proper consideration of the material on record.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Heading 59.05 was not upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication after considering the expert opinion produced by the assessee.

Analysis: The expert opinion of Shri D.R. Sharma, though produced before the lower authorities, had not been considered at all. Since that evidence was material to the classification dispute, fresh examination was necessary. The matter was therefore fit for de novo consideration by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh decision after considering the expert opinion and the relevant classification description.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded to the extent that the impugned classification order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration, with consequential relief regarding the bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification under a tariff heading must be supported by consideration of all material evidence and by a proper comparison of the goods with the statutory description; failure to consider relevant expert evidence justifies remand for de novo adjudication.

---