Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the department could appropriate a sanctioned rebate/refund against a pending demand despite the Board circular and pending appeal or stay proceedings.
Analysis: The rebate had been sanctioned under Rule 12(1)(a) read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but was sought to be adjusted against an earlier confirmed demand. The appellate authority had already found that no coercive recovery or adjustment could be made while the demand remained sub judice and relied upon the Board's circular on the subject. The controlling legal position, as applied in the order, was that Board circulars bind the department, and the Revenue cannot contend contrary to such circulars or challenge their correctness on the footing that they conflict with the statute.
Conclusion: The adjustment of the sanctioned rebate against the pending demand was impermissible, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessee retained entitlement to the sanctioned rebate, and the departmental attempt to set it off against the disputed demand was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A binding Board circular governs departmental action, and the Revenue cannot ignore or challenge it by asserting a contrary statutory interpretation while the underlying demand remains under appellate scrutiny.