https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183439 The Supreme Court applied stare decisis and held that the dispute was squarely covered by Samtel India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. As no fresh or distinguishing factual or legal circumstance was shown, the Court accepted the High Court's view that no substantial question of law warranted interference, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on that basis. The Court also exercised discretion to condone the delay in filing the petition before proceeding to decide the matter in light of the binding precedent. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2016 17:16:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183439 The Supreme Court applied stare decisis and held that the dispute was squarely covered by Samtel India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. As no fresh or distinguishing factual or legal circumstance was shown, the Court accepted the High Court's view that no substantial question of law warranted interference, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on that basis. The Court also exercised discretion to condone the delay in filing the petition before proceeding to decide the matter in light of the binding precedent. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183439