https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33933 The court rejected the Revenue's argument on the maintainability of the writ petition, allowing judicial review via a writ petition. The disputed goods were classified as 'pipe fittings' under sub-heading 7307.00, differing from the single Judge's classification under sub-heading 7305.90. The court held that there is no estoppel in the classification of goods, allowing re-classification with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The goods were classified under sub-heading 7307.00, making the company liable for the claimed differential duty. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33933 The court rejected the Revenue's argument on the maintainability of the writ petition, allowing judicial review via a writ petition. The disputed goods were classified as 'pipe fittings' under sub-heading 7307.00, differing from the single Judge's classification under sub-heading 7305.90. The court held that there is no estoppel in the classification of goods, allowing re-classification with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The goods were classified under sub-heading 7307.00, making the company liable for the claimed differential duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33933