Final writ orders cannot be reopened by motion after later statutory change, where binding Supreme Court precedent governs the refund issue.

A concluded writ order granting refund could not be reopened by a notice of motion for variation or modification after the petition had been finally disposed of. The Court held that once proceedings attain finality, they cannot be revived through a miscellaneous application merely because of a later statutory insertion such as Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It also recognised the binding force of the Supreme Court's pronouncement under Article 141, and rejected any attempt to confine that ruling to its facts. The notice of motion was therefore held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice of motion seeking variation or modification of a writ order granting refund could be entertained after the writ petition had been finally disposed of, in the light of the subsequent insertion of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Analysis: The writ petition had already been finally decided and the operative direction granting refund had attained finality. The attempt to vary that concluded order was opposed on the basis that, once proceedings stand terminated, the Court cannot reopen them by a miscellaneous application on the footing of a later statutory change. Reliance was placed on the binding effect of the Supreme Court's pronouncement under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and the Court accepted that it was not open to take a different view by treating the earlier ruling as confined to its facts.

Conclusion: The notice of motion was not maintainable and was rejected.

---