TaxTMI Login
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%
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 amended refund provisions under Section 11B governed a refund claim and writ appeal pending on the date the Central Excise Amendment Act, 1991 came into force, thereby barring a court-directed refund and requiring the assessee to pursue the statutory refund procedure.
Analysis: The amendment to Section 11B introduced a mandatory refund mechanism requiring an application in the prescribed form with supporting evidence showing that the duty had been borne by the claimant and not passed on to another person. It also enacted a non obstante clause in sub-section (3) providing that no refund shall be made except in accordance with sub-section (2), overriding contrary judicial orders. Since the writ appeal was pending when the amendment came into force, the claim had to be dealt with under the amended law. The assessee was therefore required to seek refund before the competent authority under the amended statutory procedure, and any refund found admissible would be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the Act.
Conclusion: The court held that the amended Section 11B applied to the pending matter and that the earlier direction to refund could not stand; the assessee had to pursue refund afresh under the statutory procedure, so the result was in favour of Revenue.
TaxTMI 
