https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72751 Goods were classified under Item 68 of the First Schedule, and the earlier departmental approval under Item 52 did not displace the correct tariff classification. Refund under Notification No. 167/79 could not be denied for non-observance of Chapter X procedure where the department's own insistence on Item 52 assessment made literal compliance impossible. Because the goods were cleared for the intended end-use and were duly accounted for, the procedural condition was treated as directory in those facts, and the substantive refund claim was allowed. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2011 17:43:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72751 Goods were classified under Item 68 of the First Schedule, and the earlier departmental approval under Item 52 did not displace the correct tariff classification. Refund under Notification No. 167/79 could not be denied for non-observance of Chapter X procedure where the department's own insistence on Item 52 assessment made literal compliance impossible. Because the goods were cleared for the intended end-use and were duly accounted for, the procedural condition was treated as directory in those facts, and the substantive refund claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72751