https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363234 Selective challenge to a common order on identical goods was barred where the Department had already accepted the same classification and exemption benefit for other similar consignments of the same assessee. The settled classification of projectors and eligibility to Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. had attained finality for the remaining consignments, and the principle of consistency prevented reopening the issue on substantially identical facts. On that basis, the departmental appeals against only part of the common order were held not maintainable and were rejected. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2018 07:31:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363234 Selective challenge to a common order on identical goods was barred where the Department had already accepted the same classification and exemption benefit for other similar consignments of the same assessee. The settled classification of projectors and eligibility to Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. had attained finality for the remaining consignments, and the principle of consistency prevented reopening the issue on substantially identical facts. On that basis, the departmental appeals against only part of the common order were held not maintainable and were rejected. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363234