https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87075 Past assessment practice does not bar a lawful reclassification where cogent reasons justify revisiting the earlier view. On the facts, the product's manufacture and true character supported departure from the prior Tariff Item 16A(3) treatment, so the change to the residuary entry was valid. The rice rubber roller was also not a pipe or tube of unhardened vulcanised rubber in substance: wrapping rubber sheets around a metallic hollow core did not bring it within Tariff Item 16A(3). As it did not fit the specific item, classification under Tariff Item 68 was upheld, and the consequential duty liability was sustained. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:08:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87075 Past assessment practice does not bar a lawful reclassification where cogent reasons justify revisiting the earlier view. On the facts, the product's manufacture and true character supported departure from the prior Tariff Item 16A(3) treatment, so the change to the residuary entry was valid. The rice rubber roller was also not a pipe or tube of unhardened vulcanised rubber in substance: wrapping rubber sheets around a metallic hollow core did not bring it within Tariff Item 16A(3). As it did not fit the specific item, classification under Tariff Item 68 was upheld, and the consequential duty liability was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87075