https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96268 Correct tariff classification controlled the duty demand: alumina balls, rings and pallets had already been classified under Heading 6901.00 in the appellant's favour, while activated alumina balls and nickel catalyst remained classified under sub-heading 3815.00. Because the impugned demand was founded on the disputed classification, the duty computation had to be recalculated on the basis of the accepted classification position. The demand was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for requantification of duty accordingly. en-us Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:56:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96268 Correct tariff classification controlled the duty demand: alumina balls, rings and pallets had already been classified under Heading 6901.00 in the appellant's favour, while activated alumina balls and nickel catalyst remained classified under sub-heading 3815.00. Because the impugned demand was founded on the disputed classification, the duty computation had to be recalculated on the basis of the accepted classification position. The demand was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for requantification of duty accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96268