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 refund of duty paid twice on the same excisable goods was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether cancellation intimation under Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be given on the same day or within 24 hours.
Analysis: The claim arose from a clear case of double payment of duty on one engine, once against the cancelled gate pass and again on subsequent clearance. The intimation regarding cancellation of the gate pass had been given within 24 hours. On these facts, the refund claim was treated as one arising from excess payment and not as an ordinary time-barred claim attracting the limitation under Rule 11. The requirement under Rule 173G was also understood as permitting intimation within 24 hours of cancellation.
Conclusion: The refund was held admissible and the plea of limitation was rejected. The intimation of cancellation was accepted as sufficient, and the decision went in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed on the footing that duty paid twice on the same goods was refundable and was not defeated by the limitation objection raised by the department.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has been paid twice on the same excisable goods, the refund claim is not to be defeated as a time-barred claim merely on technical limitation grounds, and cancellation intimation given within the prescribed time is sufficient compliance.