1987 (4) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondents herein and M/s. Remi Perfumes (P) Ltd., Madras in law constitute one manufacturing unit, as it were, for the clearances from them to be clubbed in considering the question with reference to the entitlement of the respondent for the benefits of exemption Notification No. 140/83, dated 5-3-1983. Shri Chandramouli, the learned S.D.R. at the outset submitted that an identical question as to whether the respondent and M/s. Remi Perfumes (P) Ltd., Madras are one and the same or are two different units, has already been considered by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras by order dated 21-10-1980 in Appeal No. 511/80 and adverting to this aspect under the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and Central Excise, Madras by his order dated 21-10-1980 referred to supra. This has also been adverted in the impugned order now appealed against. It is well-settled in law that once a competent authority in exercise of a Quasi-Judicial statutory jurisdiction decides an issue on consideration of relevant materials, such finding or conclusion can be assailed or challenged only in a manner known to law and when such finding or conclusion has reached a state of finality, it cannot be assailed or questioned unless there are fresh circumstances or fresh pieces of evidence or any rulings or authoritative pronouncements of the High Court or the Supreme Court contra so as to enable the Department to reopen the issue to the detriment of the respon....