Classification inconsistency in refund claims required remand for fresh consideration after connected decisions supported the assessee.

Refund on reclassification was held inconsistent with the appellate view already taken in a sister concern's case and with the assessee's own later clearances, both of which followed the same classification. The authority was expected to await and apply the appellate decision before finalising the matter, rather than sustaining a contrary refund rejection. Because the record showed conflicting treatment on classification and refund entitlement, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration and appropriate orders on refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on reclassification of the goods was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in light of the appellate order in the sister concern's case and the assessee's own subsequent case.

Analysis: The goods had been reclassified and refund was denied, but an identical issue in the sister concern's case had already been decided in favour of the assessee, and the assessee's own subsequent clearances were also accepted on the same basis. In these circumstances, the original authority ought to have awaited the appellate decision before finalising the matter. The existing orders disclosed inconsistency on classification and refund entitlement, warranting reconsideration by the authority below.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and appropriate orders on refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an identical classification issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee in a connected case and the assessee's own later case follows the same view, the authority should reconsider the refund claim consistently and not sustain a contrary order without taking those decisions into account.

---