Binding coordinate precedent controlled the excise controversy, and the appeal succeeded subject to the limitation clarification.

A binding coordinate decision on the same controversy had already resolved the merits against the Revenue, so the appeal followed that earlier ruling and was allowed. The court noted, however, that where the extended period of limitation under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invoked, the matter could proceed in terms of the impugned order. The operative effect was that the assessee succeeded on the basis of the prior decision, subject to the stated limitation-related clarification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be allowed in view of the earlier binding decision on the same controversy, and whether the demand could proceed where the larger period of limitation under the Central Excise Act had not been invoked.

Analysis: The issues raised were treated as concluded by the prior decision of the Court in the connected matter, which had answered the questions on merits against the Revenue and held that the controversy stood resolved accordingly. The only qualification noted was that, where the extended period of limitation was not invoked under the governing provision, the matters could proceed on the basis of the impugned order.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, with the clarification that if the larger period of limitation under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had not been invoked, the matter could proceed in terms of the impugned order.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in the appeal, subject to the stated limitation-related clarification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy is already concluded by a binding coordinate decision on identical questions, the appeal follows that decision, and the effect of the extended limitation period remains decisive where specifically invoked.

---