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 amount paid under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 in respect of sulphuric acid, held not exigible by the Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, was refundable notwithstanding that it was not paid as excise duty and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inapplicable.
Analysis: The assessee had paid the amount under protest toward clearance of exempted sulphuric acid. The Supreme Court had already held, in the assessee's own case, that Rule 57CC was not applicable because sulphuric acid emerged only as a technological necessity and as a by-product, so no amount was payable on that account. Once the liability itself was negated, the sum earlier paid could not be retained by the Government. The amount was treated as a deposit and not as excise duty, and therefore the absence of Section 11B applicability did not defeat restitution.
Conclusion: The amount paid under Rule 57CC / Rule 6 was refundable to the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the jurisdictional authority was directed to return the amount already paid under protest.
Ratio Decidendi: A sum paid under a provision later held inapplicable in the assessee's own case, though not treated as excise duty, is refundable as a deposit and cannot be retained without legal sanction.