https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371114 A non-speaking order does not by itself require remand where the substantive controversy is already settled by binding precedent. The Court noted that the earlier Division Bench decision had authoritatively held that structural steel items qualify as inputs for CENVAT credit, including in light of the 07.07.2009 clarificatory amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Because the same legal issue and substantially the same goods were involved, a fresh tribunal adjudication would serve no useful purpose. The appeal was therefore dismissed as covered by the earlier decision and remand was refused. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:55:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371114 A non-speaking order does not by itself require remand where the substantive controversy is already settled by binding precedent. The Court noted that the earlier Division Bench decision had authoritatively held that structural steel items qualify as inputs for CENVAT credit, including in light of the 07.07.2009 clarificatory amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Because the same legal issue and substantially the same goods were involved, a fresh tribunal adjudication would serve no useful purpose. The appeal was therefore dismissed as covered by the earlier decision and remand was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371114