Final exemption determination bars subordinate reopening, and writ relief remains available against jurisdictional excess despite statutory appeal remedies.

A revisional order granting exemption subject to specified conditions was treated as final, so a subordinate excise authority could not reopen classification or deny the exemption absent any revival of jurisdiction by a superior order. The later attempt to reassess the matter was therefore characterised as a jurisdictional excess. Availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the impugned action was without jurisdiction and would continue an unlawful levy contrary to the concluded exemption. The refund claim was treated as consequential to the challenge to the fresh order, not as a standalone money claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government's revisional order granting the exemption under Notification No. 25/70-Central Excises was final and barred the Assistant Collector from reopening the matter; whether the impugned order was without jurisdiction; and whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedies.

Analysis: The revisional order of the Central Government expressly allowed the exemption if the notification conditions were fulfilled, and the subsequent letter of the Assistant Collector implemented that order on stated conditions. On that basis, the earlier controversy stood concluded, and the Assistant Collector could not treat the matter as open for fresh decision in the absence of any revival of jurisdiction by a superior order. The attempt to reopen the classification and deny exemption was therefore a jurisdictional error. The availability of appeal did not bar writ relief where the impugned action itself was without jurisdiction and would result in continued levy contrary to the concluded exemption. The refund claim was consequential to the challenge to the fresh order and not a standalone request for money.

Conclusion: The revisional order was final, the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, and the writ petitions were maintainable; the assessee was entitled to the exemption and consequential refund relief.

Final Conclusion: The exemption dispute could not be reopened by the subordinate excise authority after the revisional decision, and the consequential levy and denial of refund were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional authority finally decides entitlement to exemption subject only to stated conditions, a subordinate authority cannot reopen the same matter in the absence of express revival of jurisdiction, and writ jurisdiction remains available to correct the resulting jurisdictional excess notwithstanding an alternative statutory remedy.

---