https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346208 Goods manufactured by the respondent were held to remain classifiable under Chapter 86 with the benefit of Notification No. 62/95, because the same classification and exemption dispute had already attained finality in the respondent's own case before the Supreme Court. On that binding position and the principle of judicial discipline, the later demand raised through subsequent show cause notices could not survive, particularly in light of Notification No. 30/2005 dated 05/07/2005. The impugned order dropping the demand was therefore upheld in favour of the respondent. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:21:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346208 Goods manufactured by the respondent were held to remain classifiable under Chapter 86 with the benefit of Notification No. 62/95, because the same classification and exemption dispute had already attained finality in the respondent's own case before the Supreme Court. On that binding position and the principle of judicial discipline, the later demand raised through subsequent show cause notices could not survive, particularly in light of Notification No. 30/2005 dated 05/07/2005. The impugned order dropping the demand was therefore upheld in favour of the respondent. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346208