https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344301 Refund claims were treated as consequential relief because the earlier adjudicating order had already held the goods non-excisable and exempt under Notification No. 175/86-CE, and that order had attained finality when the department did not appeal. The later objection that the earlier finding was only obiter dictum was rejected as unsustainable, since the unchallenged order continued to bind the parties. An argument based on an alleged failure to follow an earlier Tribunal decision was also rejected on the same footing. The later-period refund claims were therefore allowed and the rejection set aside. en-us Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Aug 2017 09:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344301 Refund claims were treated as consequential relief because the earlier adjudicating order had already held the goods non-excisable and exempt under Notification No. 175/86-CE, and that order had attained finality when the department did not appeal. The later objection that the earlier finding was only obiter dictum was rejected as unsustainable, since the unchallenged order continued to bind the parties. An argument based on an alleged failure to follow an earlier Tribunal decision was also rejected on the same footing. The later-period refund claims were therefore allowed and the rejection set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344301