Final adjudication bars contrary duty demand where the same issue for the same period was already decided.

A final adjudication between the same parties on the same facts and for the same period barred the Revenue from sustaining a contrary demand under the compounded levy scheme. The Tribunal held that an earlier order in the assessee's own case had already set aside the differential duty and penalty, and that binding decision had not been challenged. It further noted that the lower authorities wrongly relied on a later High Court judgment while ignoring the final order and the provisional fixation of annual production capacity. The impugned demands were therefore not sustainable and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential duty and penalty under the compounded levy scheme could be sustained when the Tribunal had already decided the assessee's own case for the same period and that decision had attained finality.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that an earlier order in the assessee's own case had set aside the demands and the Revenue had not challenged that decision. It further held that the lower authorities had failed to consider that binding final decision and had instead relied on a later High Court judgment. The Tribunal applied the principle that a final decision between the same parties on the same facts and for the same period cannot be reopened by taking a different stand in subsequent proceedings. It also found that the determination of annual capacity of production was in issue and had been provisionally fixed, contrary to the reasoning of the lower appellate authority.

Conclusion: The demand was held not sustainable and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside because the matter had already been concluded in the assessee's favour for the relevant period, and the authorities could not disregard that final adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication that has attained finality between the same parties on the same facts and for the same period bars the authorities from sustaining a contrary demand in later proceedings.

---