https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80426 Goods used as a battery component did not satisfy the description of a pilfer-proof closure because they were removable without difficulty and did not seal the container in a tamper-proof manner. The product was therefore correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 42, and the earlier departmental acceptance of that classification supported the result. Once Tariff Item 68 applied, the exemption under Notification No. 182/82 remained available, so the duty demand had no legal basis. No suppression, fraud, or misdeclaration was established, so the penalty under Rule 173Q could not survive. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:08:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80426 Goods used as a battery component did not satisfy the description of a pilfer-proof closure because they were removable without difficulty and did not seal the container in a tamper-proof manner. The product was therefore correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 42, and the earlier departmental acceptance of that classification supported the result. Once Tariff Item 68 applied, the exemption under Notification No. 182/82 remained available, so the duty demand had no legal basis. No suppression, fraud, or misdeclaration was established, so the penalty under Rule 173Q could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80426