TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as on day's List and is taken up for hearing. Both the learned Counsel have addressed the Court on merits. 3.The bone of contention in the present writ petition is as to whether tyre warps would be excisable under Item 18 or under Item 22. In the present case the tyre warps have been sought to be included in Item 22 and accordingly, a demand was levied on the petitioner. In the ensued proceeding petitioner had participated in the hearing and before any order was passed this writ petition was moved and certain interim orders were obtained. However, there was no interim order restraining the authorities from passing order in the proceedings, the hearing of which was concluded. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle XIV, New Delhi & Others, reported in 1978 (115) I.T.R. 842. 6.In elaborating his submission, Mr. Chowdhury had pointed out that tyre warps are held yarns in a particular pattern which is used for manufacture of tyres and at the time of such manufacture the cotton threads that hold the yarns are destroyed. Therefore, it was something other than tyre fabric. Then again, this very question was decided in between the parties in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, it falls under Item 18 and not under Item 22. Therefore, this writ petition should be allowed. He then contends that the authority was free to pass an order and if it had passed the order, the same could have been challenged in this petition but even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to rights of the petitioner to challenge such legislation if occasion so arise, and such decision will operate as res judicata in between the parties in respect of same question even though for subsequent years. Such a question was considered in Chiranji Lal Ramji Dass (supra). Where a question of law determined by Court was held to be res judicata even though it was in respect of subsequent year when the decision was not challenged in a forum to which the principle of res judicata does not apply. Thus, the question cannot be reopened any further. 9.So far as the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Samaddar is concerned, it was open to the authority to pass appropriate order after hearing was concluded since there was no interim order re....