https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287649 After an appellate order set aside the original excise demand and penalty and directed refund, the finality of that order prevented the original authority from reopening the same matter by issuing a fresh notice on the same factual basis. In the absence of an express and operative remand, the matter could not be recommenced de novo by the original officer; any challenge to an alleged error had to be pursued through revision rather than unilateral re-adjudication. The fresh notice was held to be without jurisdiction, and further proceedings based on it were restrained. en-us Wed, 18 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:44:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287649 After an appellate order set aside the original excise demand and penalty and directed refund, the finality of that order prevented the original authority from reopening the same matter by issuing a fresh notice on the same factual basis. In the absence of an express and operative remand, the matter could not be recommenced de novo by the original officer; any challenge to an alleged error had to be pursued through revision rather than unilateral re-adjudication. The fresh notice was held to be without jurisdiction, and further proceedings based on it were restrained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287649