Finality and consistency bar selective departmental challenge where identical consignments already accepted under the same classification and exemption.

Selective challenge to a common order on identical goods was barred where the Department had already accepted the same classification and exemption benefit for other similar consignments of the same assessee. The settled classification of projectors and eligibility to Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. had attained finality for the remaining consignments, and the principle of consistency prevented reopening the issue on substantially identical facts. On that basis, the departmental appeals against only part of the common order were held not maintainable and were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department could maintain appeals against only part of a common order when it had already accepted the same classification and notification benefit in respect of the remaining similar consignments.

Analysis: The appeals arose from a common dispute regarding classification of projectors and eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The Department had accepted the Commissioner (Appeals) order for 24 consignments imported through Air Cargo Complex and had not challenged those orders, while seeking to contest only three similar consignments imported through Seaport, Chennai. Once the Department had accepted the decision on identical goods involving the same assessee, the matter had attained finality and the Department could not selectively challenge only a part of the common order. The principle of finality and consistency barred reopening of the same issue on substantially identical facts.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable on this ground and were rejected.

---