https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209157 Differential duty could not be demanded for a period already covered by a final, unchallenged classification order granting exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The settled classification continued to govern that period, and the revenue could not reopen the same period's duty liability without first assailing the earlier order. Any fresh dispute, if maintainable at all, could arise only for a subsequent period. The operative effect was that the demand for the impugned period was unsustainable because finality had attached to the classification and exemption benefit. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209157 Differential duty could not be demanded for a period already covered by a final, unchallenged classification order granting exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The settled classification continued to govern that period, and the revenue could not reopen the same period's duty liability without first assailing the earlier order. Any fresh dispute, if maintainable at all, could arise only for a subsequent period. The operative effect was that the demand for the impugned period was unsustainable because finality had attached to the classification and exemption benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209157