https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41098 A mistaken classification of excisable goods was treated as attracting Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. Correct tariff classification depended on the manufacturing process: simple processing would not move forged articles out of Item 26AA(ia), while further processing creating a new product with a distinct name, character or use could support Item 68. Reliance on departmental clarification did not bar duty recovery because there is no estoppel against a taxing statute, but recovery for the period beyond one year was barred by limitation. The classification issue required fresh examination on the actual process of manufacture. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 May 2010 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41098 A mistaken classification of excisable goods was treated as attracting Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. Correct tariff classification depended on the manufacturing process: simple processing would not move forged articles out of Item 26AA(ia), while further processing creating a new product with a distinct name, character or use could support Item 68. Reliance on departmental clarification did not bar duty recovery because there is no estoppel against a taxing statute, but recovery for the period beyond one year was barred by limitation. The classification issue required fresh examination on the actual process of manufacture. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41098