https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94187 Subordinate authorities must strictly implement binding appellate orders and cannot reopen issues already decided by reading those orders narrowly or treating implementation as fresh adjudication. Where an earlier order has settled classification, Modvat credit eligibility, and delay-related questions, the proper course for any alleged factual error is rectification, not re-litigation of the same matters. The text also distinguishes contempt from non-compliance: a mere implementation dispute or interpretive disagreement does not, by itself, justify contempt proceedings, which require deliberate disobedience. The assessee was entitled to enforcement of the appellate order, but contempt notice was not warranted. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:42:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94187 Subordinate authorities must strictly implement binding appellate orders and cannot reopen issues already decided by reading those orders narrowly or treating implementation as fresh adjudication. Where an earlier order has settled classification, Modvat credit eligibility, and delay-related questions, the proper course for any alleged factual error is rectification, not re-litigation of the same matters. The text also distinguishes contempt from non-compliance: a mere implementation dispute or interpretive disagreement does not, by itself, justify contempt proceedings, which require deliberate disobedience. The assessee was entitled to enforcement of the appellate order, but contempt notice was not warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94187