https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90177 Duty demand could not be sustained once the product was settled as classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 rather than 3304.00. The demand had been confirmed solely because the classification list was approved by the Department, but an earlier Tribunal ruling had already held that Calamine IP and Calamine BP in bulk packings fell under sub-heading 3003.30, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's challenge. With classification finally settled in favour of the assessee, the foundation for the duty demand disappeared. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:04:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90177 Duty demand could not be sustained once the product was settled as classifiable under sub-heading 3003.30 rather than 3304.00. The demand had been confirmed solely because the classification list was approved by the Department, but an earlier Tribunal ruling had already held that Calamine IP and Calamine BP in bulk packings fell under sub-heading 3003.30, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's challenge. With classification finally settled in favour of the assessee, the foundation for the duty demand disappeared. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90177