Refund claims are limited by the amended notification, and unchallenged duty components cannot be reopened on appeal.

Refund litigation remained confined to the duty components specifically challenged in the appeal; where rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty was never separately disputed before the Commissioner (Appeals), nothing survived for Tribunal review on that aspect and the appeal was not maintainable on that ground. On the substantive refund issue, the amended notification limiting refund to 75% was treated as valid and binding, and refund was therefore restricted to the extent permitted by the amended regime rather than the full duty paid from PLA. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling in VVF Limited and applied the notified cap.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable when the rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty was not separately challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the full duty paid in PLA or only to the extent prescribed by the amended notifications.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable when the rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty was not separately challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was confined to Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess, and no challenge was laid to the rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty. Since no finding was called for or recorded on that aspect, there was nothing surviving in the impugned order for Tribunal review on that issue.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the full duty paid in PLA or only to the extent prescribed by the amended notifications.

Analysis: The amended notification restricting refund to 75% was treated as valid and binding. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in VVF Limited, the Tribunal held that refund could be granted only to the extent permitted by the amended notification and not for the entire duty paid from PLA.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund of the full duty paid and was entitled only to the extent prescribed by the amended notifications.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal followed both from lack of maintainability and from the binding effect of the amended refund regime upheld by the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund claim against a specific duty component is not separately challenged in appeal, and the governing amended notification validly restricts the refund, the Tribunal will not grant refund beyond the notified limit.

---