Repeated proceedings on the same Cenvat credit dispute are unsustainable when the earlier matter was already concluded.

Repeated proceedings on the same Cenvat credit dispute were found unsustainable where an earlier proceeding had already dealt with the same disputed credit, ended in reversal and appropriation, and was not challenged by Revenue. A later show cause notice based on the same goods, the same credit and the same factual foundation was treated as a mere re-formulation of the earlier demand rather than a fresh, independent cause. The assessee was therefore protected from being subjected to repetitive proceedings on the same matter, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings based on the same Cenvat credit dispute could be reopened by a subsequent show cause notice and whether such repeated proceedings were sustainable.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings had already dealt with the disputed Cenvat credit amount and had concluded with reversal and appropriation, without any appeal by Revenue. The later notice sought to proceed on the same factual foundation involving the same goods and the same credit, only under a different demand formulation. On the materials produced, the subsequent proceedings were found to be a repetition of the earlier matter and not a fresh, independent cause.

Conclusion: The subsequent proceedings were not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the assessee could not be subjected to repeated proceedings on the same matter, and consequential relief was available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot be subjected to repetitive proceedings on the same cause where the earlier dispute has already been concluded on the same factual foundation.

---