Final unchallenged excise order binds parties, so consequential refund claims cannot be rejected as obiter dictum.

Refund claims were treated as consequential relief because the earlier adjudicating order had already held the goods non-excisable and exempt under Notification No. 175/86-CE, and that order had attained finality when the department did not appeal. The later objection that the earlier finding was only obiter dictum was rejected as unsustainable, since the unchallenged order continued to bind the parties. An argument based on an alleged failure to follow an earlier Tribunal decision was also rejected on the same footing. The later-period refund claims were therefore allowed and the rejection set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remaining refund claims were allowable as consequential relief flowing from the final adjudication holding the goods to be non-excisable or eligible for exemption, and whether the rejection of those claims could be sustained on the ground that the earlier adjudication was obiter dictum or not binding.

Analysis: The earlier adjudicating order holding the disputed items non-excisable and granting exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE had not been appealed by the department and had thus attained finality. In that situation, the assessee was entitled to rely upon the legal consequences flowing from that final order. The later appellate reasoning that the earlier finding was merely obiter dictum was held to be unsustainable. The objection based on an alleged failure to follow an earlier Tribunal decision was also rejected, as the final unchallenged order governed the parties and could not be disregarded.

Conclusion: The refund claims for the later period were allowed as consequential relief, and the rejection of those claims was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---