https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354100 Prior classification of the same exported goods, affirmed in earlier proceedings, remained binding because it was based on substantive evidence and there was no material change in facts. On that basis, the department could not adopt a contrary classification for export incentive purposes. The court also noted that, although an appeal was ordinarily available, forcing the petitioners to pursue it would be futile where the issue had already been conclusively determined and the impugned orders ignored that binding position; the predeposit requirement also made the alternate remedy burdensome. Writ jurisdiction was therefore exercised and the contrary orders were set aside. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354100 Prior classification of the same exported goods, affirmed in earlier proceedings, remained binding because it was based on substantive evidence and there was no material change in facts. On that basis, the department could not adopt a contrary classification for export incentive purposes. The court also noted that, although an appeal was ordinarily available, forcing the petitioners to pursue it would be futile where the issue had already been conclusively determined and the impugned orders ignored that binding position; the predeposit requirement also made the alternate remedy burdensome. Writ jurisdiction was therefore exercised and the contrary orders were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354100