Past-period duty demand sustained where the disputed classification lists were not approved for the relevant period.

Duty for a past period remained sustainable where the disputed demand was not based on the approved classification lists for that period. The earlier approval relied on by the assessee did not govern the relevant period, and the later modification of classification was not challenged. On those facts, the principle that no demand can survive without a valid approved classification list did not apply. The cited precedents were distinguishable because they concerned demands founded on an approved or otherwise valid classification position. The demand was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty for the past period could be demanded where the relevant classification lists had not been approved, and whether the precedents on absence of a valid classification order applied.

Analysis: The classification lists that formed the basis of the disputed demand were not the approved lists for the relevant period. The earlier approval relied upon by the appellant did not govern the period for which duty was demanded, and the subsequent modification of classification had not been challenged. On these facts, the rule that no demand can survive in the absence of a valid approved classification list was not attracted. The cited authorities were distinguishable because they proceeded on situations where the demand rested on an approved or otherwise valid classification position, unlike the present case.

Conclusion: The demand for the past period was held to be sustainable, and the appeal failed.

---