Finalised excise classification cannot be reopened merely because a later Supreme Court ruling takes a different view.

Excise classification matters that have already been conclusively determined by earlier appellate and court orders cannot be reopened for the same period merely because a later Supreme Court decision adopts a different view. Where the Department had accepted the assessee's classification under Chapter Heading 4823.90 and those orders had attained finality, any attempt to alter that concluded position was impermissible. Orders based on such reopening were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise authorities could reopen and alter the classification for a period already concluded by earlier final orders and a court order, in view of a subsequent Supreme Court decision on the classification of the product.

Analysis: The classification dispute had already been decided in earlier proceedings, including an appellate order and a court order that recorded the Department's stand and granted the assessee the benefit of Chapter Heading 4823.90 for the relevant period. Those orders had attained finality. A later Supreme Court decision taking a different view on the classification could govern future action, but it did not authorise the Department to reopen completed assessments or disturb matters already concluded by judicial orders. Since the impugned orders proceeded on such reopening, they could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and were set aside. The petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Concluded assessments or classifications that have attained finality pursuant to judicial orders cannot be reopened merely because a later decision takes a different view on the legal classification.

---