Binding precedent bars re-litigation of SSI exemption and cum-duty valuation issues in excise assessment.

Cum-duty pricing was accepted for assessable value because the Tribunal had remanded the matter for re-quantification and the revenue raised no objection to that course. Affixation of a foreign company's brand name on goods otherwise registered in the Indian company's name did not disentitle the assessee to small scale industry exemption, as the issue had already been concluded by an unchallenged Calcutta High Court ruling and was later supported by Supreme Court authority. A point settled by binding precedent could not be reopened in the same dispute, and the Tribunal's decision was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale price was to be treated as cum-duty price for the purpose of arriving at assessable value. (ii) Whether affixation of a foreign company's brand name on goods otherwise registered in the Indian company's name disentitled the assessee to exemption under the small scale industry notification.

Issue (i): Whether the sale price was to be treated as cum-duty price for the purpose of arriving at assessable value.

Analysis: The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for re-quantification on this aspect, and the revenue raised no grievance against that course. The finding on this point was therefore accepted.

Conclusion: The finding on cum-duty price and re-quantification was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether affixation of a foreign company's brand name on goods otherwise registered in the Indian company's name disentitled the assessee to exemption under the small scale industry notification.

Analysis: The Tribunal had decided the issue against the revenue by following binding precedent of the Calcutta High Court, whose judgment had attained finality since no appeal had been filed. The same issue was also covered by a later decision of the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the revenue could not be permitted to reopen the question in the present appeal.

Conclusion: The assessee was not disentitled to the exemption on this ground.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for with the Tribunal's decision, and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a point stands concluded by an unchallenged binding judgment and is later supported by Supreme Court authority, it cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent appeal on the same issue.

---