Binding High Court exemption ruling bars differential excise duty on barley malt; Tribunal set aside the demands.

Where a High Court has directly ruled on the same product, the Tribunal will treat that decision as binding in the absence of any contrary High Court authority on that product. On that basis, barley malt manufactured from a customer's barley was held to be fully exempt from central excise duty, so differential duty demands could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore set aside the duty demands and granted consequential relief, and it found it unnecessary to examine the separate questions of job work and promissory estoppel.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demands for differential central excise duty could be sustained on barley malt manufactured out of customer's barley in the face of the Delhi High Court's ruling on the product's exemption.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Delhi High Court had directly ruled on the very product in dispute, namely barley malt, and that no contrary High Court decision on the product was shown. Following its settled practice, the Tribunal treated that ruling as binding for the purpose of the present appeal. Since the High Court had declared barley malt fully free from duty, the Tribunal held that differential duty could not be demanded against the appellants. In view of that ruling, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to go into the separate questions of job work and promissory estoppel.

Conclusion: The demands for differential duty were not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned duty demands were set aside and the appellants obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal should follow a directly applicable High Court decision on the same product, and once that decision establishes full exemption from duty, differential duty demands on the same product cannot be sustained.

---