Consequential relief requires compliance with final appellate conditions under Modvat credit, and disregard defeats the claim.

Consequential relief could not be granted where the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions attached to an earlier appellate order that had attained finality between the parties. The prior order had limited Modvat credit to cases where the supplier obtained registration before 31-12-94, and that condition was never challenged. Because the present claim depended entirely on that final order, relief was unavailable without strict compliance with its terms. The rejection of the claim was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether consequential relief could be granted when the appellant had not complied with the conditions imposed by an earlier appellate order, which had become final between the parties.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had expressly held that Modvat credit was available only if the supplier got themselves registered even thereafter but before 31-12-94. That order was not challenged and therefore attained finality between the parties. The present proceeding arose only from a claim for consequential relief, and such relief could not be claimed without satisfying the conditions attached to the earlier final order.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to consequential relief without complying with the conditions imposed by the earlier final order, and the rejection of the claim was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the relief sought was inconsistent with the binding conditions of the unchallenged prior order.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot seek consequential relief on the basis of an earlier order while disregarding the conditions attached to that order once it has attained finality between the parties.

---