Finality on excisability bars the revenue from taking a contrary stand on spent solvent in later proceedings.

Where an identical excisability issue has already attained finality in favour of the assessee and the department has accepted that position, the revenue cannot later take a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal applied the binding jurisdictional High Court ruling on spent methanol or spent solvent and held that the department was barred from reagitating the same question in later cases. As a result, separate examination of duty liability on the resultant spent solvent was unnecessary, and the impugned order was treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department, having accepted the principle in an earlier identical case, could be permitted to take a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings concerning excisability of spent methanol/spent solvent.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court on an identical issue and noted that the department had already accepted the earlier principle. It held that when an identical question has attained finality in favour of the assessee, the revenue cannot reagitate the same issue in later cases by adopting a contrary position. On that basis, the question of duty liability on the resultant spent solvent did not require separate examination.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was held unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department has accepted an earlier final decision on an identical excisability issue, it is not permitted to take a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings on the same question.

---