https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168125 The Supreme Court's ruling controlled the dispute: gallery length with no fan or radiator attached could not be included while determining the number of chambers in a hot air stenter. On that legal basis, the demand founded on inclusion of such gallery length could not survive. The absence of an independent substantive challenge to the earlier determination order did not bar the Tribunal from applying the later declaration of law, particularly where the assessee had already objected to inclusion of gallery length in reply to the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was required to reconsider the matter accordingly, and its order was quashed with the appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. en-us Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168125 The Supreme Court's ruling controlled the dispute: gallery length with no fan or radiator attached could not be included while determining the number of chambers in a hot air stenter. On that legal basis, the demand founded on inclusion of such gallery length could not survive. The absence of an independent substantive challenge to the earlier determination order did not bar the Tribunal from applying the later declaration of law, particularly where the assessee had already objected to inclusion of gallery length in reply to the show-cause notice. The Tribunal was required to reconsider the matter accordingly, and its order was quashed with the appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168125