https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219945 The court held that fresh mushrooms were excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 before the 2004 amendment. It emphasized the binding nature of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) must follow higher appellate orders. The court found that the AO's attempt to demand excise duty equivalent to customs duty post-2004 amendment was contrary to established decisions. The AO's issuance of show-cause notices and confirmation of demands were deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, ruling that the AO's actions were bad in law. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2013 09:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219945 The court held that fresh mushrooms were excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 before the 2004 amendment. It emphasized the binding nature of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) must follow higher appellate orders. The court found that the AO's attempt to demand excise duty equivalent to customs duty post-2004 amendment was contrary to established decisions. The AO's issuance of show-cause notices and confirmation of demands were deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, ruling that the AO's actions were bad in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219945