Final appellate finding on product identity bars reopening of differential duty demand based on the same manufacture issue.

An earlier appellate order held that Bitulux Insulation Board and Insulation Board were the same product and that converting one into the other did not amount to manufacture. Because the revenue did not challenge that finding, it attained finality and could not be reopened through subsequent show cause notices or orders demanding differential duty. The Court held that the revenue could not relitigate the same controversy after the operative finding on identity of product and absence of manufacture had become final, so the differential duty demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue could sustain the show cause notices and demand for differential duty when an earlier appellate order holding that the product was identical to the insulation board and that the conversion process did not amount to manufacture had attained finality.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had concluded that Bitulux Insulation Board and Insulation Board were the same product and that the process of converting one into the other was not manufacture. That order was not challenged by the revenue. In the absence of any challenge to that ative finding, the revenue could not seek to reopen the same controversy through the impugned notices or the consequential orders confirming them.

Conclusion: The demand for differential duty was unsustainable and the revenue was not entitled to any relief. The appeals were dismissed.

---