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 refund claim could be entertained in writ jurisdiction when the rejection order was appealable and the claim was stated to be barred by Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
Analysis: The refund rejection was itself an appealable order under the Act, and the petitioner had not pursued the statutory appellate remedy against the earlier classification order that remained in force. So long as Section 11B remained operative, refund could not be ordered otherwise than in accordance with that provision. The fact that a different view may have been taken in other proceedings did not displace the binding effect of the unchallenged assessment or classification order. The proper course was to file an appeal with an for condonation of delay.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not entertainable in writ proceedings, and the petition was liable to fail.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, if available.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund rejection is appealable and the underlying assessment or classification order remains unchallenged, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to bypass the statutory scheme governing refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.