https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123160 An earlier appellate order had treated the Superintendent's letter dated 6-2-1996 as a nullity and had directed the adjudicating authority to consider the assessee's claim under Rule 57H; that finding had not been challenged by the Revenue. A later direction requiring the assessee to file a reply on the proposed inadmissibility of credit, based on the same letter, was therefore inconsistent with the binding effect of the earlier order and could not stand. The remand for reconsideration was otherwise maintained, but the specific direction founded on the letter dated 6-2-1996 was set aside. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:08:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123160 An earlier appellate order had treated the Superintendent's letter dated 6-2-1996 as a nullity and had directed the adjudicating authority to consider the assessee's claim under Rule 57H; that finding had not been challenged by the Revenue. A later direction requiring the assessee to file a reply on the proposed inadmissibility of credit, based on the same letter, was therefore inconsistent with the binding effect of the earlier order and could not stand. The remand for reconsideration was otherwise maintained, but the specific direction founded on the letter dated 6-2-1996 was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123160