https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432357 The High Court treated the respondents' earlier recorded submission as binding and held that they could not later resile from it by invoking limitation under Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. The submission had been understood to mean that the petitioner's request for special rate of value addition would be examined on merits and that the account would be settled accordingly. Because the objection that the application was time-barred was not raised when that position was recorded, and the petitioner acted on that understanding, the respondents were estopped from reopening the issue. They remained bound to consider the request in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2023 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432357 The High Court treated the respondents' earlier recorded submission as binding and held that they could not later resile from it by invoking limitation under Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. The submission had been understood to mean that the petitioner's request for special rate of value addition would be examined on merits and that the account would be settled accordingly. Because the objection that the application was time-barred was not raised when that position was recorded, and the petitioner acted on that understanding, the respondents were estopped from reopening the issue. They remained bound to consider the request in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432357