Distinct excise notification compliance issues required fresh merits review; prior ruling did not govern the dispute.

The Supreme Court held that an earlier decision on manufacture of thinners from materials procured by the assessee did not govern a different dispute concerning compliance with a notification and alleged procurement of materials from outside the factory without following Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because the two controversies were materially distinct, the Tribunal was wrong to dismiss the Revenue's appeal as covered by the prior ruling. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was in dismissing the Revenue's appeal by treating the case as covered by the earlier decision, or whether the matter required fresh decision on merits because the question was compliance with the notification and the use of materials procured outside the factory without following Chapter X procedure.

Analysis: The earlier decision dealt with a different controversy concerning whether manufacture of thinners from materials procured by the assessee took the case outside the notification. Here, the relevant question was whether the assessee had complied with the terms of the notification when it was alleged that materials were procured from outside the factory without following the process prescribed under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The two situations were not the same, and the earlier ruling could not be treated as governing the present dispute.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for disposal on merits.

---