Exclusion of gallery length in hot air stenters governed the dispute, and later Supreme Court law had to be applied.

The Supreme Court's ruling controlled the dispute: gallery length with no fan or radiator attached could not be included while determining the number of chambers in a hot air stenter. On that legal basis, the demand founded on inclusion of such gallery length could not survive. The absence of an independent substantive challenge to the earlier determination order did not bar the Tribunal from applying the later declaration of law, particularly where the assessee had already objected to inclusion of gallery length in reply to the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was required to reconsider the matter accordingly, and its order was quashed with the appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the demand on the length of the gallery and in holding that the earlier order had attained finality despite the subsequent Supreme Court ruling on exclusion of galleries without fan or radiator while determining the number of chambers.

Analysis: The controversy stood covered by the Supreme Court's ruling that the length of galleries having no fan or radiator attached to them cannot be counted while determining the number of chambers in a hot air stenter. In that legal position, the demand based on inclusion of such gallery length could not stand. The fact that the assessee had not filed an independent substantive challenge to the earlier determination order did not preclude consideration of the Supreme Court's later declaration of law when the matter reached the Tribunal, especially when the assessee had objected to the inclusion of gallery length in reply to the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ought to have applied the Supreme Court's ruling and reconsidered the matter; the order of the Tribunal was quashed and the appeal was restored to its file for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---