https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111717 A demand based on parallel invoices could not be sustained where the goods were shown to be the same goods earlier intercepted, seized, adjudicated upon, and subjected to duty payment. The appellate view accepted that Revenue could not rely selectively on a proprietor's statement while ignoring the clarification that the goods covered by the later invoices were already dealt with in the prior proceeding. On that basis, a fresh demand on the same goods would amount to double adjudication, so the demand was held unsustainable to the extent it covered those goods. en-us Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:23:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111717 A demand based on parallel invoices could not be sustained where the goods were shown to be the same goods earlier intercepted, seized, adjudicated upon, and subjected to duty payment. The appellate view accepted that Revenue could not rely selectively on a proprietor's statement while ignoring the clarification that the goods covered by the later invoices were already dealt with in the prior proceeding. On that basis, a fresh demand on the same goods would amount to double adjudication, so the demand was held unsustainable to the extent it covered those goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111717