https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98020 A consequential refund order could not be used to reopen a refund entitlement already concluded by an earlier appellate order that had attained finality. Because the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the original rejection of refund and recognised entitlement, and the department did not challenge that decision in time, the issue was no longer open in a later appeal against the refund sanction. The objection based on retrospective approval of price lists should have been raised in the earlier proceedings and could not be introduced after finality attached to the appellate order. The challenge to the consequential refund order was therefore not maintainable, and the refund entitlement remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:55:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98020 A consequential refund order could not be used to reopen a refund entitlement already concluded by an earlier appellate order that had attained finality. Because the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the original rejection of refund and recognised entitlement, and the department did not challenge that decision in time, the issue was no longer open in a later appeal against the refund sanction. The objection based on retrospective approval of price lists should have been raised in the earlier proceedings and could not be introduced after finality attached to the appellate order. The challenge to the consequential refund order was therefore not maintainable, and the refund entitlement remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98020