Judicial discipline in exemption disputes requires following an earlier ruling on identical facts when no distinguishing basis is shown.

Exemption under Notification No. 230/86 was held applicable where the respondent's manufacturing activity for the disputed period was materially identical to the earlier period already decided in its favour. Because the Tribunal's prior decision on the same facts had been upheld by the Supreme Court, judicial discipline required that the earlier ruling be followed, and the department could not re-agitate the issue without showing any distinguishing factual basis. On that reasoning, the exemption remained available to the respondent and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 230/86 dated 03.04.1986 for the disputed period, and whether the department could re-agitate the same issue when an earlier decision in the respondent's own case on identical facts had already been upheld.

Analysis: The dispute concerned admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 230/86. The same issue for the immediately preceding period had already been decided in the respondent's favour by the Tribunal, and the department's challenge had been rejected by the Supreme Court. The facts and manufacturing process for the present period were found to be materially the same as in the earlier case. In these circumstances, judicial discipline required that the earlier decision be followed, and the department had not shown any distinguishing factual basis to avoid its application.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the exemption, and the department's appeal could not succeed.

---