Excise classification settlement defeats duty demand based on a superseded heading classification.

A duty demand could not be sustained where the relevant appellate classification had already been settled in favour of the assessee under Chapter Heading 82.05. Once that classification order displaced the earlier Assistant Collector's view under Chapter Heading 85.43, the demand lost its legal foundation and could not be confirmed on the basis of the set-aside order. The demand was therefore rightly dropped, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand could be sustained on the basis of the Assistant Collector's classification of the product under Chapter Heading 85.43 when that classification had already been set aside and the product stood classified under Chapter Heading 82.05.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had already settled the classification of the product in favour of the respondents under Chapter Heading 82.05. Once that classification order stood reversed, no demand could legally be raised or confirmed on the strength of the earlier Assistant Collector's order classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 85.43. The demand thus lacked a valid foundation.

Conclusion: The duty demand was rightly dropped and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---