https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198853 A lower tribunal must implement a binding Supreme Court remand direction as it stands and cannot decline to follow it on the plea that the order is per incuriam; any such challenge must be taken before the Supreme Court itself. Applying that principle, CESTAT found that the Commissioner had only recomputed duty in compliance with the remand and no calculation error was shown. The recomputed duty demand was therefore sustained, along with the penalty, and the appeals failed. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198853 A lower tribunal must implement a binding Supreme Court remand direction as it stands and cannot decline to follow it on the plea that the order is per incuriam; any such challenge must be taken before the Supreme Court itself. Applying that principle, CESTAT found that the Commissioner had only recomputed duty in compliance with the remand and no calculation error was shown. The recomputed duty demand was therefore sustained, along with the penalty, and the appeals failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198853