https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356391 A final adjudication between the same parties on the same facts and for the same period barred the Revenue from sustaining a contrary demand under the compounded levy scheme. The Tribunal held that an earlier order in the assessee's own case had already set aside the differential duty and penalty, and that binding decision had not been challenged. It further noted that the lower authorities wrongly relied on a later High Court judgment while ignoring the final order and the provisional fixation of annual production capacity. The impugned demands were therefore not sustainable and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 06:31:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356391 A final adjudication between the same parties on the same facts and for the same period barred the Revenue from sustaining a contrary demand under the compounded levy scheme. The Tribunal held that an earlier order in the assessee's own case had already set aside the differential duty and penalty, and that binding decision had not been challenged. It further noted that the lower authorities wrongly relied on a later High Court judgment while ignoring the final order and the provisional fixation of annual production capacity. The impugned demands were therefore not sustainable and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356391