Revenue cannot take a contrary stand after accepting a final decision on excisability of spent solvent.

Once the Revenue had accepted a final decision on the excisability of spent solvent on an identical issue, it could not later adopt a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings involving the same question. That settled position was treated as binding, so the Court found no basis to interfere with the orders under challenge. The alternative contention on duty liability under Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was not examined because the earlier accepted view was dispositive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue, having accepted the earlier decision on excisability of spent solvent, could be permitted to take a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings; and whether the appeals could survive in view of that settled position.

Analysis: The earlier adjudication on the same issue had attained finality and was followed in later decisions concerning identical or substantially similar facts. The principle applied was that once the Revenue has accepted an earlier order on an identical issue and has not challenged it, it cannot be allowed to agitate the same question in later cases. This rule was treated as controlling, and therefore the Court found it unnecessary to enter upon the alternative contention regarding duty liability under Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not entitled to take a contrary stand, and the appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was concluded in favour of the assessee on the ground that the earlier accepted position bound the Revenue, leaving no scope for interference with the orders under challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue has accepted a final decision on an identical issue, it cannot later adopt an inconsistent stand in subsequent proceedings involving the same question.

---