Finality of classification ruling sustained the excise refund claim, while the Article 136 objection and Shenoy principle were rejected.

Dismissal of the special leave petition rendered the High Court's classification ruling final for this dispute, so a later contrary view in an unconnected matter did not reopen the issue. The objection based on Article 136 was rejected, and the assessee was treated as entitled to the excise duty refund ordered by the High Court. The principle in M/s. Shenoy & Co. was held inapplicable because that case concerned a common mandamus arising from constitutional challenges across multiple writ petitions, unlike the final judgment in an individual appeal. The refund was to be examined by the authorities in light of the statute as amended and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of excise duty when the High Court's classification ruling had attained finality in the appeal, and whether a later contrary view in an unconnected matter or the bar under Article 136 prevented interference.

Analysis: The dismissal of the special leave petition against the High Court judgment rendered the classification issue final for this appeal. The principle in M/s. Shenoy & Co. was held inapplicable because that case involved a common mandamus issued on constitutional challenges across multiple writ petitions, whereas the present matter concerned a final judgment in an individual appeal. The objection based on Article 136 was rejected. The assessee was held entitled to refund of excise duty ordered by the High Court, with the refund to be examined by the authorities in light of the statute as amended and the decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

Conclusion: The refund claim was upheld and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---