https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221318 Where the valuation dispute over inclusion of pre-delivery inspection charges and after-sales service charges was already covered by a binding earlier decision, insistence on a pre-deposit as a for entertaining the appeal was unwarranted. The Bombay High Court set aside the CESTAT's direction to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority and directed that the appeal be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. The ruling emphasises that a prior binding decision on the same valuation issue can justify disposal of the appeal without imposing a deposit condition. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221318 Where the valuation dispute over inclusion of pre-delivery inspection charges and after-sales service charges was already covered by a binding earlier decision, insistence on a pre-deposit as a for entertaining the appeal was unwarranted. The Bombay High Court set aside the CESTAT's direction to deposit 50% of the duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority and directed that the appeal be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit. The ruling emphasises that a prior binding decision on the same valuation issue can justify disposal of the appeal without imposing a deposit condition. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221318