https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84268 Approved excise price lists and settled classifications could not be reopened through fresh show cause notices where the issues had already been concluded by statutory adjudication and acted upon. The Court held that writ interference was justified because the notices sought an impermissible re-agitation of settled matters. It further held that the extended limitation under Section 11A was unavailable in the absence of legally sustainable allegations of suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or intent to evade duty. On valuation, the established factory-gate sale price under Section 4(1)(a) had to be applied, and resort to the alternative valuation route was not sustainable. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:49:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84268 Approved excise price lists and settled classifications could not be reopened through fresh show cause notices where the issues had already been concluded by statutory adjudication and acted upon. The Court held that writ interference was justified because the notices sought an impermissible re-agitation of settled matters. It further held that the extended limitation under Section 11A was unavailable in the absence of legally sustainable allegations of suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or intent to evade duty. On valuation, the established factory-gate sale price under Section 4(1)(a) had to be applied, and resort to the alternative valuation route was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84268