https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45837 A review application failed because no palpable error was shown in the earlier order dismissing the writ petition. The Court declined the plea that the product was covered by Rule 57D, noting that it had been treated as a final product and sold in the market, so no classification dispute survived. It also held that the petitioner had earlier accepted the classification position and could not use subsequent events in review to avoid excise liability. The review was therefore rejected on merits. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:38:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45837 A review application failed because no palpable error was shown in the earlier order dismissing the writ petition. The Court declined the plea that the product was covered by Rule 57D, noting that it had been treated as a final product and sold in the market, so no classification dispute survived. It also held that the petitioner had earlier accepted the classification position and could not use subsequent events in review to avoid excise liability. The review was therefore rejected on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45837