https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105975 In de novo adjudication after a limited remand, an earlier adjudication that had already been set aside could not be relied on or revived by the Commissioner, because it had ceased to exist. On the material before it, the applicant established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, and the demand confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not justify insisting on deposit at that stage. The waiver application was allowed. en-us Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:52:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105975 In de novo adjudication after a limited remand, an earlier adjudication that had already been set aside could not be relied on or revived by the Commissioner, because it had ceased to exist. On the material before it, the applicant established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, and the demand confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not justify insisting on deposit at that stage. The waiver application was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105975