https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795164 A public authority cannot revise a completed lump-sum contract to recover an alleged benefit from pre-existing excise-duty and customs-duty exemptions where the tender documents contained no tax-component break-up and the authority accepted the bid on that basis. The notes state that the State's own Essentiality Certificate, dropped audit objections, and belated revival of the claim undermined any basis for withholding the contractor's security deposit. They further state that the recovery notice, reply, and demand formed a single process; once the demand was rejected and refund directed, a further enquiry into the same alleged benefit could not continue. The security deposit was therefore refundable unconditionally. en-us Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 08:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795164 A public authority cannot revise a completed lump-sum contract to recover an alleged benefit from pre-existing excise-duty and customs-duty exemptions where the tender documents contained no tax-component break-up and the authority accepted the bid on that basis. The notes state that the State's own Essentiality Certificate, dropped audit objections, and belated revival of the claim undermined any basis for withholding the contractor's security deposit. They further state that the recovery notice, reply, and demand formed a single process; once the demand was rejected and refund directed, a further enquiry into the same alleged benefit could not continue. The security deposit was therefore refundable unconditionally. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795164