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 rejection of the refund claims on the ground that the relief had not been passed on to consumers was sustainable, and whether the valuation argument based on Section 4(4)(d)(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 affected the petitioner's entitlement.
Analysis: The refund claim arose under the exemption and relief notifications issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned rejection rested solely on a press note and on an administrative assumption that the duty relief must be passed on to consumers. In the absence of any such condition in the statutory notification, the administrative direction could not restrict the relief granted by the notification or control the quasi-judicial determination of the refund claim. The additional contention based on Section 4(4)(d)(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not alter the position, because the question was whether the statutory relief itself was admissible and not whether the incidence had been passed on as a matter of valuation.
Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claims was unlawful, and the petitioner was entitled to have the refund claims reconsidered without importing the consumer-pass-on requirement from the press note.