https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752218 CESTAT Allahabad set aside Commissioner (Appeals) order that contradicted an earlier tribunal decision regarding appellant's entitlement to interest on duty deposit. The tribunal held that since the previous order dated 04.08.2021 determining interest entitlement was not challenged and attained finality, the Assistant Commissioner was bound by it under principles of judicial discipline. The Commissioner (Appeals) taking a contrary view violated res judicata principles as the interest entitlement issue was conclusively decided earlier. The tribunal emphasized that unchallenged orders cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedent that non-compliance with appellate orders causes undue harassment to assessees and administrative chaos. Appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 02 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 May 2024 23:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752218 CESTAT Allahabad set aside Commissioner (Appeals) order that contradicted an earlier tribunal decision regarding appellant's entitlement to interest on duty deposit. The tribunal held that since the previous order dated 04.08.2021 determining interest entitlement was not challenged and attained finality, the Assistant Commissioner was bound by it under principles of judicial discipline. The Commissioner (Appeals) taking a contrary view violated res judicata principles as the interest entitlement issue was conclusively decided earlier. The tribunal emphasized that unchallenged orders cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedent that non-compliance with appellate orders causes undue harassment to assessees and administrative chaos. Appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752218