Consequential refund under appellate relief is not a fresh claim for limitation purposes, and refund must be implemented.

An appellate direction granting consequential refund must be implemented by the Revenue, and a later request for payment is treated as a reminder to give effect to that order rather than a fresh refund claim. On that basis, the limitation objection based on failure to file a new refund application within six months was rejected, because the refund arose directly from the earlier appellate relief and related reassessment. The impugned order was set aside and the Customs Authority was directed to grant the refund with interest within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund arising from an earlier appellate order granting consequential relief was barred by limitation because no fresh refund application was filed within six months from the appellate order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that once an appellate order expressly directs grant of refund with consequential relief, the Revenue is bound to give effect to that direction. In such a situation, the assessee's subsequent request is only a reminder for implementation and not the institution of a fresh refund claim. The limitation provision relied upon by the Revenue could not defeat a refund that flowed directly from the appellate relief already granted, particularly when reassessment was undertaken in compliance with the earlier order.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the objection based on delay was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the Customs Authority was directed to grant the refund with interest within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority grants consequential refund, the ensuing claim is not a fresh refund claim for limitation purposes but only a request for implementation of the appellate direction.

---