https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46753 A subordinate excise authority could not sustain a central excise demand on record players where the competent higher authority had already ruled on identical facts that such goods were excisable as gramophones but covered by Notification No. 145/63-C.E. The Delhi High Court treated that earlier administrative determination as binding on subordinate authorities and noted that similar demands against other manufacturers had already been dropped. In those circumstances, the petitioner could not be singled out for adverse treatment, and the impugned demand was held unsustainable and liable to be quashed. en-us Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:44:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46753 A subordinate excise authority could not sustain a central excise demand on record players where the competent higher authority had already ruled on identical facts that such goods were excisable as gramophones but covered by Notification No. 145/63-C.E. The Delhi High Court treated that earlier administrative determination as binding on subordinate authorities and noted that similar demands against other manufacturers had already been dropped. In those circumstances, the petitioner could not be singled out for adverse treatment, and the impugned demand was held unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46753