https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202611 Once the Revenue had accepted a final decision on the excisability of spent solvent on an identical issue, it could not later adopt a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings involving the same question. That settled position was treated as binding, so the Court found no basis to interfere with the orders under challenge. The alternative contention on duty liability under Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was not examined because the earlier accepted view was dispositive. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202611 Once the Revenue had accepted a final decision on the excisability of spent solvent on an identical issue, it could not later adopt a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings involving the same question. That settled position was treated as binding, so the Court found no basis to interfere with the orders under challenge. The alternative contention on duty liability under Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was not examined because the earlier accepted view was dispositive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202611