Classification under CET sub-heading 70.15 prevailed after an earlier affirmed decision controlled the goods' tariff treatment.

Glass moulds and plastic gaskets were treated as classifiable under CET sub-heading 70.15 rather than Heading 84.80, because the same classification dispute in the assessee's own case had already been decided in favour of the Revenue and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The note applies that earlier affirmed view as controlling and states that the goods must follow the earlier classification, with consequential duty liability under sub-heading 70.15. The assessee's claim for Heading 84.80 was rejected, and the Revenue's classification was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether glass moulds and plastic gaskets were classifiable under CET sub-heading 70.15 or under Heading 84.80, and whether duty was payable accordingly.

Analysis: The dispute concerned classification of the products. The record showed that the same classification issue in the assessee's own case had already been decided in favour of the Revenue and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Following that earlier determination, the products in question were treated as falling under CET sub-heading 70.15 rather than Heading 84.80, with consequential duty liability.

Conclusion: The classification was held to be under CET sub-heading 70.15 and the assessee's claim under Heading 84.80 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the impugned order sustaining the Revenue's classification was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same assessee's classification dispute has already been conclusively decided and affirmed, the later case follows that determination and the goods are classified in accordance with the earlier affirmed view.

---