https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115148 The exemption under Notification No. 14/92-C.E. could not be granted in de novo proceedings because the earlier order-in-appeal had already held that the notification conditions were not satisfied, and that finding had attained finality. The remand was limited to quantification of duty, so the adjudicating authority could not reopen the concluded question of eligibility to the exemption. By allowing the benefit again, the Commissioner (Appeals) acted beyond the scope of the remand and the impugned order was unsustainable on that point. en-us Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 12:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115148 The exemption under Notification No. 14/92-C.E. could not be granted in de novo proceedings because the earlier order-in-appeal had already held that the notification conditions were not satisfied, and that finding had attained finality. The remand was limited to quantification of duty, so the adjudicating authority could not reopen the concluded question of eligibility to the exemption. By allowing the benefit again, the Commissioner (Appeals) acted beyond the scope of the remand and the impugned order was unsustainable on that point. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115148