https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167556 Relief under a sugar-excess production notification issued under Rule 8(1) was confined to duty actually paid, so sugar exported under bond without payment of duty did not qualify for rebate and the claim failed. The Tribunal also held that an earlier appellate order was not binding where it was incorrect in law or based on an erroneous view of the facts, so the assessee could not rely on it. On limitation, non-disclosure of the export was treated as suppression of material facts, justifying the extended period under Section 11A, and that objection was upheld in favour of Revenue. en-us Sat, 23 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167556 Relief under a sugar-excess production notification issued under Rule 8(1) was confined to duty actually paid, so sugar exported under bond without payment of duty did not qualify for rebate and the claim failed. The Tribunal also held that an earlier appellate order was not binding where it was incorrect in law or based on an erroneous view of the facts, so the assessee could not rely on it. On limitation, non-disclosure of the export was treated as suppression of material facts, justifying the extended period under Section 11A, and that objection was upheld in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 23 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167556