https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43830 Disputed excisable goods were treated as falling under Tariff Item 15(1) rather than Tariff Item 15(2), so the duty classification favoured the assessee. Bank guarantees furnished only to secure the Revenue during pending proceedings were said to lapse once the dispute was finally adjudicated, and they could not be encashed thereafter as if they were cash deposits. The Revenue was therefore not authorised to realise the guarantees after final decision, and the amount collected was directed to be refunded. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43830 Disputed excisable goods were treated as falling under Tariff Item 15(1) rather than Tariff Item 15(2), so the duty classification favoured the assessee. Bank guarantees furnished only to secure the Revenue during pending proceedings were said to lapse once the dispute was finally adjudicated, and they could not be encashed thereafter as if they were cash deposits. The Revenue was therefore not authorised to realise the guarantees after final decision, and the amount collected was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43830