https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273253 A prior writ decision did not bar reconsideration of the scope of Rule 12 because res judicata does not preclude a pure jurisdictional question where the governing legal position has since been clarified. Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 was invalid insofar as it authorised recovery of duty on escaped or nil levy, because a delegated rule cannot create or enlarge a charging mechanism absent statutory authority in the parent Act. The notices demanding duty were therefore unsustainable and the writ petitions succeeded. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:54:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273253 A prior writ decision did not bar reconsideration of the scope of Rule 12 because res judicata does not preclude a pure jurisdictional question where the governing legal position has since been clarified. Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 was invalid insofar as it authorised recovery of duty on escaped or nil levy, because a delegated rule cannot create or enlarge a charging mechanism absent statutory authority in the parent Act. The notices demanding duty were therefore unsustainable and the writ petitions succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273253