https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406252 The court held that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shimla had jurisdiction over the matter, not the Thane Commissionerate. It found no evidence of duty collection by the petitioner, rejecting the applicability of Section 11D and 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The court upheld the principle of res judicata, stating the impugned notice was an impermissible attempt to revisit a concluded matter. Ownership in job work agreements did not entail liability for excise duty. Consequently, the court deemed the notice jurisdictionally flawed, quashing it and allowing the writ petition. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406252 The court held that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shimla had jurisdiction over the matter, not the Thane Commissionerate. It found no evidence of duty collection by the petitioner, rejecting the applicability of Section 11D and 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act. The court upheld the principle of res judicata, stating the impugned notice was an impermissible attempt to revisit a concluded matter. Ownership in job work agreements did not entail liability for excise duty. Consequently, the court deemed the notice jurisdictionally flawed, quashing it and allowing the writ petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406252