TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the differential excise duty for the relevant period, and whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground of limitation under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: A prior decision between the same parties had already held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the difference between the higher and lower rates of duty. Relying on that , the Court held that the excise authorities were not justified in refusing the refund by invoking limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of the differential excise duty, and the rejection of the refund claim on limitation grounds was unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
