Excise assessment consistency prevents arbitrary departure from a concluded revisional view absent fresh facts or legal change.

Revenue authorities cannot depart from a concluded excise assessment view without fresh facts, a change in law, or other cogent reasons. The earlier revisional order had finally determined that crimped yarn was assessable on the basis of resultant denierage, and the later trade notice and departmental communications were inconsistent with that binding determination. The court therefore quashed the impugned directions, held that duty could not be levied on the basis of the component denier of the single yarn in the absence of any material change, and directed refund relief to be worked out in accordance with the earlier revisional order, subject to verification if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of any change in facts, law, or material considerations, the excise authorities could depart from the Central Government's earlier revisional decision and levy duty on 2-ply crimped nylon yarn on the basis of the denier of the component single yarns, and whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amounts covered by the earlier revisional order.

Analysis: The earlier revisional order under Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 had finally determined that crimped yarn was assessable on the basis of its resultant denierage. The Court held that while res judicata in the strict sense does not govern tax matters, revenue authorities cannot arbitrarily abandon a concluded view in a later period without fresh facts, a change in law, or other cogent reasons. In the present case, no such change was shown. The later trade notice and departmental letters were therefore inconsistent with the earlier binding revisional decision. The Court also accepted that the refund payable for the earlier period had to be worked out in terms of the revisional order, with verification if necessary.

Conclusion: The departmental change of stand was not justified and the assessee succeeded. The authorities were bound to carry out the earlier revisional order for the prior period and could not levy duty on the basis of the component denier of the single yarn for the later period.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned trade notice and departmental communications were quashed, a mandamus was issued against further recovery on the disputed basis, and refund relief was directed in accordance with the earlier revisional order.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax and excise matters, an authority may depart from an earlier concluded view only for fresh facts, a change in law, or other cogent reasons; absent such justification, a capricious change of stand is impermissible.

---