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 excess duty paid under provisional assessment was required to be adjusted under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether the assessee had to pursue refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by establishing absence of unjust enrichment, and whether the later proviso to Rule 9B(5) displaced the earlier rule position.
Analysis: Rule 9B(5), as applied to the relevant period, provided for adjustment of duty provisionally assessed against duty finally assessed and entitled the assessee to refund of any excess. The Supreme Court had already held that recoveries or refunds consequent upon such adjustment under Rule 9B(5) are outside Sections 11A and 11B, and that Section 11B applies only to a separate refund claim made after finalization or in proceedings challenging the final order. The Court also held that the belated administrative order could not be governed by the subsequently inserted proviso so as to require recourse to Section 11B for the earlier assessment period.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to adjustment of excess provisional duty under Rule 9B(5) and was not required to satisfy the requirements of Section 11B; the Revenue's contention was rejected.