https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265388 Binding precedent controlled the departmental appeal because an earlier Division Bench decision on the same issue was applicable, and there was no basis to depart from it. The court accepted the concession that Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. M/s. Kay Fragrance (P) Ltd. governed the controversy, so the Commissioner's appeal was dismissed on that authority. After disposal of the main matter, the court also allowed the miscellaneous application and condoned a 40-day delay in filing the appeal. en-us Thu, 07 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265388 Binding precedent controlled the departmental appeal because an earlier Division Bench decision on the same issue was applicable, and there was no basis to depart from it. The court accepted the concession that Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. M/s. Kay Fragrance (P) Ltd. governed the controversy, so the Commissioner's appeal was dismissed on that authority. After disposal of the main matter, the court also allowed the miscellaneous application and condoned a 40-day delay in filing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265388