Finality of adjudication bars repeated notices, while customs and excise demands fail when exemption conditions are not lawfully enforced.

Repeated show cause notices on the same cause of action were treated as impermissible where earlier orders had attained finality or had already been set aside, so the revived demands could not be sustained. On the merits, customs and central excise demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were found unsustainable because the goods remained in the premises under an export-oriented and bonded warehousing regime, there was no material of diversion or misuse, and the department had not lawfully or timely enforced the applicable exemption conditions or limitation requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether repeated show cause notices on the same cause of action, after earlier orders had attained finality or been set aside in appeal, could validly sustain the impugned demands. (ii) Whether the customs and central excise demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could be sustained on merits in the circumstances of the case, including limitation and the exemption regime applicable to the unit.

Issue (i): Whether repeated show cause notices on the same cause of action, after earlier orders had attained finality or been set aside in appeal, could validly sustain the impugned demands.

Analysis: The proceedings were found to be a fourth round of litigation arising from the same set of facts. Earlier demands had been dropped or set aside, and the authorities were noted to have re-opened the very same controversy through subsequent notices without any new material. The reasoning applied the principle that, once an issue has been conclusively decided and has attained finality, it cannot be revived by another notice on the same basis. The Tribunal also treated the repeated notices as contrary to law and inconsistent with the earlier appellate orders.

Conclusion: The repeated notices and the revived demands were held to be impermissible and time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the customs and central excise demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could be sustained on merits in the circumstances of the case, including limitation and the exemption regime applicable to the unit.

Analysis: The unit had been operating under an export-oriented and bonded warehousing regime, but the record showed that the goods remained lying in the premises and there was no material of diversion or misuse. The Tribunal noted that the department had failed to act within the relevant time and had not renewed or proceeded in the manner required under the exemption notifications. It further found that the impugned order did not satisfactorily address depreciation, the status of the goods, or the consequences of the earlier appellate orders. On these facts, the customs duty, central excise duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were treated as unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not survive either on the ground of repeated proceedings on the same issue or on merits, and the appellant obtained full relief with consequential benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand already adjudicated upon and allowed to attain finality cannot be revived through successive notices on the same facts, and fiscal demands, confiscation and penalties cannot be sustained when the statutory and exemption conditions are not lawfully and timely enforced.

---