https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43090 A fresh writ petition challenging the balance excise duty demand for the period outside an exemption notification was not maintainable where that liability had already been concluded in the original Section 11A adjudication. The earlier writ petition affected only the period expressly covered by the Section 11C notification and did not disturb the remaining demand. The unreduced balance continued to be enforceable because it was based on the petitioners' own materials and the admitted rate of duty, and a repeated attempt to reopen the same liability was treated as barred by constructive res judicata. en-us Mon, 26 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43090 A fresh writ petition challenging the balance excise duty demand for the period outside an exemption notification was not maintainable where that liability had already been concluded in the original Section 11A adjudication. The earlier writ petition affected only the period expressly covered by the Section 11C notification and did not disturb the remaining demand. The unreduced balance continued to be enforceable because it was based on the petitioners' own materials and the admitted rate of duty, and a repeated attempt to reopen the same liability was treated as barred by constructive res judicata. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43090