1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Case Remanded for Fresh Decision on Duty Refund Claim Due to Grounds Discrepancy</h1> The Tribunal remanded the case concerning a refund claim for duty paid on physician samples to the original authority for a fresh decision. The ... Refund claim - duty paid on physician samples cleared - original adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not furnished the relevant data - defence of the appellant is that they may be given an opportunity to submit the data, matter has to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority Issues: Refund claim rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944; Valuation of physician samples as per different procedures during specific periods; Effectiveness of Board's circular as clarificatory in nature.In this case, the appellant filed a refund claim for duty paid on physician samples cleared during a specific period. The appellant initially paid duty based on the pro-rata value of the smallest packs but later adopted a different valuation method as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim before a certain date due to limitation under Section 11B. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) determined valuation based on different procedures for specific periods, relying on a circular by the Board. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the circular was clarificatory and should apply to the entire period. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) introduced a new ground in the decision, different from the original rejection based on lack of data submission. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision, considering the applicability of the Board's clarification for the entire period and allowing the appellants to submit the required cost data for the refund claim. The appellants will have the opportunity to present their case before a final decision is made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
