2003 (3) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURT

Interpretation of Rule 57F(17) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,

Held that:- Sub-rule 17(b) is identical to sub-rule 17(a) except that it is in respect of a different final product. Once a validity of a provision is challenged and the validity is upheld by reading down that provision, then it is not necessary that in all subsequent proceedings the validity must again be challenged. It is sufficient if a party claims that the provision has to be read in the manner laid down by a judgment of this Court. In the light of the judgment of this Court in Eicher Motors case (1999 (1) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), sub-rule 17 cannot apply to vested rights. Therefore to the extent that the goods have already been exported, prior to March, 1997, the assessee would be entitled to a refund.