Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1977 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1977 (4) TMI 41 - SC - Central ExciseWhether claim for refund was not time barred inasmuch as on the date when they filed the claim for refund their classification list had not been approved? Held that:- Any adjustment which is made under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B dealing with provisional assessments is not governed by Section 11A or Section 11B. The Court has, however, observed that if ultimately the final order passed under sub-rule (5) is questioned in a writ petition or a suit and ultimately the assessee succeeds, the refund claim which arises as a consequence of such decision would be covered by Section 11B. The present case is not a case of any adjustments in the payment of excise duty made under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B. The refund claim does not appear to be a claim arising under Rule 9B(5). It is an independent claim for refund on the basis of Notification 71/78, dated 1st March, 1978. The appellants challenged the rejection of their claim for refund right upto CEGAT and filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court also. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B are attracted and the appellants are governed by the ratio of Mafatlal Industries's case [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]
|