Secondary packing cost deduction under central excise was upheld where the identical issue had already been settled in the assessee's case.

The admissibility of deduction for the cost of secondary wooden packing under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as settled by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which had followed the Supreme Court's ratio on the same question. Because the identical issue had already been determined and no contrary legal basis was shown, the same view was applied consistently. The secondary packing cost was therefore accepted as an admissible deduction, and the department's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cost of secondary packing in the form of wooden packing was an admissible deduction under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The dispute was covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which had followed the ratio of the Supreme Court decision on the same question. In view of the settled position and the prior determination on the identical issue, no different view was warranted.

Conclusion: The deduction for the cost of secondary packing was treated as admissible, and the department's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the identical issue has already been decided in the assessee's own case and the legal position is settled, the appeal is to be disposed of consistently with that binding determination.

---