Binding precedent and declaration under Rule 96ZO(3) required fresh consideration of the excise claim.

The order under challenge was found unsustainable in light of the earlier binding decision relied upon, and the matter was required to be reconsidered because the respondent had filed a declaration under the proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claim was therefore not finally concluded on the merits, and the appropriate authority was directed to examine the declaration and decide the matter in accordance with law. The challenged order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, with fresh consideration ordered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order under challenge was sustainable in light of the prior decision relied upon, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the basis of a declaration under the proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The order under challenge was not sustained in view of the earlier binding decision referred to by the Court. Since the respondent had given a declaration under the proviso to Rule 96ZO(3), the matter was not finally concluded on the merits of the claim. The appropriate authority was directed to examine the declaration and dispose of the claim in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The challenged order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, with the claim directed to be considered afresh in accordance with law.

---