https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113002 A refund order could be stayed where the manufacture issue had already been decided against the assessee in an earlier case involving identical goods, the same period and the same parties. The Tribunal noted that the earlier finding that the Board was the manufacturer and the contractor was only hired labour had attained finality, and the respondents showed no material difference in contractual terms. It applied the principle that a concluded issue cannot be reagitated in refund proceedings, since doing so would undermine the statutory scheme and the finality of appellate orders. On that basis, it found a strong prima facie case for the Revenue and held that the refund order should not operate pending appeal. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2012 12:24:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113002 A refund order could be stayed where the manufacture issue had already been decided against the assessee in an earlier case involving identical goods, the same period and the same parties. The Tribunal noted that the earlier finding that the Board was the manufacturer and the contractor was only hired labour had attained finality, and the respondents showed no material difference in contractual terms. It applied the principle that a concluded issue cannot be reagitated in refund proceedings, since doing so would undermine the statutory scheme and the finality of appellate orders. On that basis, it found a strong prima facie case for the Revenue and held that the refund order should not operate pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113002