https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124760 The Tribunal upheld the decision to grant depreciation and rejected the Revenue's appeal challenging the same. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue should have contested the order if they disagreed, as the issue was settled by earlier Tribunal rulings and judgments cited. Since the Revenue did not challenge the order to grant depreciation, the appeal disputing the same was deemed invalid. The Tribunal held that the earlier Commissioner's order had been set aside, and the consequential relief of de-bonding and releasing the goods was to be provided, as the duty and penalty were already deposited by the assessee in compliance with the order. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:55:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124760 The Tribunal upheld the decision to grant depreciation and rejected the Revenue's appeal challenging the same. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue should have contested the order if they disagreed, as the issue was settled by earlier Tribunal rulings and judgments cited. Since the Revenue did not challenge the order to grant depreciation, the appeal disputing the same was deemed invalid. The Tribunal held that the earlier Commissioner's order had been set aside, and the consequential relief of de-bonding and releasing the goods was to be provided, as the duty and penalty were already deposited by the assessee in compliance with the order. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124760