https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77732 Refund under Rule 5 was upheld on the basis of an earlier identical Karnataka HC ruling, and the Tribunal's reliance on that view was treated as correct. The later challenge failed because the Supreme Court's dismissal of the special leave petition, including the concession recorded there, did not amount to a separate acceptance of the Revenue's contrary position. Applying consistency and the binding effect of the approved view in an identical situation, the Bombay HC declined to take a different view and dismissed the appeal in limine, leaving the Revenue without relief. en-us Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 11:26:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77732 Refund under Rule 5 was upheld on the basis of an earlier identical Karnataka HC ruling, and the Tribunal's reliance on that view was treated as correct. The later challenge failed because the Supreme Court's dismissal of the special leave petition, including the concession recorded there, did not amount to a separate acceptance of the Revenue's contrary position. Applying consistency and the binding effect of the approved view in an identical situation, the Bombay HC declined to take a different view and dismissed the appeal in limine, leaving the Revenue without relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77732