Constructive res judicata barred a fresh writ attack on balance excise duty outside the exemption notification.

A fresh writ petition challenging the balance excise duty demand for the period outside an exemption notification was not maintainable where that liability had already been concluded in the original Section 11A adjudication. The earlier writ petition affected only the period expressly covered by the Section 11C notification and did not disturb the remaining demand. The unreduced balance continued to be enforceable because it was based on the petitioners' own materials and the admitted rate of duty, and a repeated attempt to reopen the same liability was treated as barred by constructive res judicata.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fresh writ petition challenging the balance excise duty demand for the period not covered by the exemption notification was maintainable and entitled to relief.

Analysis: The demand challenged in the petition formed part of the original show cause proceedings under Section 11A and had already been adjudicated by the Assistant Collector's final order. The earlier writ petition had only given effect to the Central Government's notification issued under Section 11C for the period expressly covered by it, leaving the balance period outside the notification untouched. The remaining demand was based on the petitioners' own materials and on the admitted rate of duty, and the attempt to reopen the same liability by another writ petition was treated as barred by constructive res judicata.

Conclusion: The challenge to the balance demand was rejected and the petitioners were not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand that is part of a final adjudication under Section 11A cannot be reopened in a subsequent writ petition merely because an exemption notification under Section 11C reduces the recoverable period; the unreduced balance remains enforceable and repeated challenges to the same liability are barred by constructive res judicata.

---