https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50515 Herbonic was held correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 20.01 of the Central Excise Tariff because an earlier Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case on the same product had neither been stayed nor set aside and therefore continued to govern the dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following that binding classification view and in reversing the Assistant Commissioner's classification under Sub-heading 2108.99, with the consequential duty and penalty demand not sustained. The Revenue's challenge to the classification failed and the appellate order was upheld. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50515 Herbonic was held correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 20.01 of the Central Excise Tariff because an earlier Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case on the same product had neither been stayed nor set aside and therefore continued to govern the dispute. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following that binding classification view and in reversing the Assistant Commissioner's classification under Sub-heading 2108.99, with the consequential duty and penalty demand not sustained. The Revenue's challenge to the classification failed and the appellate order was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50515