Differential duty demand under central excise rules fails where the same issue was already decided in the assessee's favour.

A differential duty demand under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not sustained because the same controversy had already been finally decided in the assessee's own favour. The Tribunal treated the later dispute as covered by its earlier final order in the assessee's case, applied that prior decision, and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was therefore allowed and full relief granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustainable when the same issue in the assessee's own case had already been decided in its favour.

Analysis: The appeal was taken up for disposal on the footing that an identical controversy arising from the same assessee had already been finally decided by the Bench. The impugned order was examined in the light of that earlier final order, and the present dispute was treated as covered by the prior decision. On that basis, the order under challenge was not sustained.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was not upheld and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee obtained full relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy in the later appeal is identical to an issue already finally decided in the assessee's own case, the subsequent appeal may be disposed of by following the earlier decision and granting relief accordingly.

---