https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52701 A differential duty demand on STD/PCO monitors was challenged on the basis that the goods had been cleared under an earlier binding Board circular classifying them under Tariff Heading 90.20. A later departmental view placed the goods under Chapter 84.70, but the Tribunal treated the earlier circular as controlling and held that the Revenue could not disregard the classification on which duty had originally been paid. The differential demand was therefore held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:29:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52701 A differential duty demand on STD/PCO monitors was challenged on the basis that the goods had been cleared under an earlier binding Board circular classifying them under Tariff Heading 90.20. A later departmental view placed the goods under Chapter 84.70, but the Tribunal treated the earlier circular as controlling and held that the Revenue could not disregard the classification on which duty had originally been paid. The differential demand was therefore held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52701