https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40501 A revisional order directing consequential relief in a refund matter was treated as an order of refund, and the revenue was bound to implement it. Objections that the duty had been collected on crude aluminium rather than properzi rods could not be re-agitated at the implementation stage because they were matters that should have been raised in revision. The limitation plea under Rule 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules was also unavailable against an order already directing refund. The levy controversy was not reopened independently, as the revisional order concluded the matter. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40501 A revisional order directing consequential relief in a refund matter was treated as an order of refund, and the revenue was bound to implement it. Objections that the duty had been collected on crude aluminium rather than properzi rods could not be re-agitated at the implementation stage because they were matters that should have been raised in revision. The limitation plea under Rule 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules was also unavailable against an order already directing refund. The levy controversy was not reopened independently, as the revisional order concluded the matter. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40501