Prior final decision on the same excise dispute bars a consequential penalty based on identical invoices.

Where the same alleged removal of excisable goods without duty payment and without proper invoices had already been decided against the department in earlier proceedings, a consequential penalty based on that very issue could not survive. The Tribunal noted that the dispute concerning the 15 invoices had been covered by the prior order of the same Bench, which had already set aside the duty demand and penalty. On that basis, the penalty in the present matter was found unsustainable and the impugned order was interfered with to that extent, leaving the assessee free from the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed for alleged removal of excisable goods without payment of duty and without proper invoice was sustainable when the very same issue had already been decided against the department in earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the dispute relating to the 15 invoices had already formed part of earlier proceedings before the same Bench, where the demand of duty and the penalty had been set aside. In view of that prior determination, the Tribunal held that the penalty in the present appeal could not be sustained and that the impugned order, to the extent it upheld penalty, required interference.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be unwarranted and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the very same issue has already been finally decided in earlier proceedings, a consequential penalty founded on that issue cannot be sustained.

---