TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, setting aside unjust demands, emphasizing consistency and judicial discipline.</h1> The Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming demands on the ground of manufacturing FELT, ruling in favor of the appellants. It found the ... Felt - First punched web - Marketability and excisability - Order - Non-filing of appeal - Res judicata Issues:1. Confirmation of demands on the ground of manufacturing FELT.2. Rejection of the plea that the intermediate product is not marketable.3. Consideration of previous orders passed in the appellant's favor.4. Applicability of principles laid down in earlier cases.Analysis:1. The appeal arose from the confirmation of demands based on the manufacturing of FELT, with the appellants arguing that the intermediate product is not FELT but 'first punch web' and is not marketable. The Original Authority had previously dropped demands for the same issue in earlier periods, and the Revenue's appeals were rejected by higher authorities. The Tribunal had also ruled in favor of the appellants in previous cases, indicating that the issue had been settled in their favor. The Tribunal found the recommencement of proceedings and confirmation of demands unjustified and without jurisdiction, considering it a case of judicial indiscipline. Citing relevant case laws, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.2. The appellant contended that the Original Authority failed to consider the previous orders passed in their favor, leading to judicial indiscipline. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing that once an issue has been settled by its ruling and not challenged before the Apex Court, the Revenue cannot re-adjudicate the matter. The Tribunal referred to various case laws highlighting the principle that when the Revenue accepts a principle laid down in an earlier case, it cannot take a different stand in subsequent cases.3. The learned JDR reiterated the departmental view, which was contrary to the appellant's contentions based on previous favorable orders. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, noted that the demands raised against the assessee for the disputed product had been dropped in previous periods and the issue had been settled in the appellant's favor. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities were not justified in recommencing proceedings and confirming demands, terming it a case of judicial indiscipline.4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that once an issue has been settled in favor of an assessee and not challenged before higher courts, the Revenue cannot revisit the matter. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments emphasizing the importance of consistency in applying legal principles and the prohibition against taking a different stand in similar cases. The impugned order was set aside, aligning with the established legal principles and the previous favorable rulings in the appellant's favor.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
