1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Court dismisses petition challenging refund order under Central Excise Act; claim rejected as time-barred.</h1> The court dismissed the petition challenging the impugned order for refund of Rs. 1,30,000 under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court ... Refund of duty paid β For home consumption β Held that: - Refund in case of duty paid at the time of export, not for goods for Home Consumption. Issues:Challenge to impugned order dated 22-12-2003 for refund of Rs. 1,30,000 with interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 22-12-2003, which partly dismissed their revision application for refund. The revisional authority rejected the claim of refund of Rs. 1,30,000 as time-barred but accepted the claim of refund of Rs. 30,800. The impugned order highlighted that the goods were cleared for home consumption by the petitioner on 31-12-1997, brought back for reconditioning under Rule 173H on 5-1-1998, and then cleared for an exhibition on 19-11-1998. The petitioner paid duty of Rs. 1,30,000 at the time of clearance for home consumption and Rs. 30,800 at the time of export. The court held that the revisional authority did not err in rejecting the claim for refund of Rs. 1,30,000 as time-barred since the duty was paid at the time of clearance for home consumption, not at the time of export on 17-9-1999.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, stating that the revisional authority's rejection of the claim for refund of Rs. 1,30,000 as time-barred was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition failed, and no costs were awarded.