TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Limitations of Section 11A in Recovery Cases: Court Emphasizes Statutory Remedies</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Versus M/s. Jellalpore Tea Estate,</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Versus M/s. Jellalpore Tea Estate, - 2011 (268) E.L.T. 14 (Gau.) , [2011] 32 STT 231 (Gau.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Validity of invoking Section 11A for recovery after a final order.3. Applicability of Section 35-E for challenging orders.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns the interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue sought recovery under this section, alleging fraud by the assessee in obtaining a refund. However, the court analyzed the provision and concluded that Section 11A applies only in specific circumstances related to duty levy, payment, or valuation of excisable goods. In this case, the issue was the assessee's entitlement to a specific exemption, not a duty-related matter, making Section 11A inapplicable.2. The court examined the validity of invoking Section 11A after a final order had been passed in favor of the assessee. It noted that the Assistant Commissioner's order in 2002, granting the benefit to the assessee, had not been challenged by the Revenue through the available revisional power under Section 35-E. The court emphasized that circumventing the statutory remedy by resorting to Section 11A was impermissible. It held that the Revenue could not initiate parallel proceedings to challenge the earlier order through Section 11A.3. The judgment also addressed the applicability of Section 35-E for challenging orders. It highlighted that the Revenue's failure to utilize the revisional power under Section 35-E to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order rendered the attempt to use Section 11A inappropriate. The court emphasized that statutory remedies must be followed as prescribed by law. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the limitations of Section 11A, emphasizes the importance of following statutory remedies, and underscores the impermissibility of circumventing prescribed legal procedures.
TaxTMI 