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 a demand barred by limitation could be treated as "payable" and recovered by deduction from amounts due to the assessee under section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the Department could justify adjustment on general principles of debtor-creditor appropriation under section 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Analysis: The claim sought to be recovered had admittedly become time-barred. The expression "payable" in the recovery provision was read as referring to a legally recoverable amount and not to a debt that could no longer be enforced in law. The recovery section provided a mode of realisation of sums lawfully due; it did not create a source of authority to revive a barred demand. The general rule of appropriation of payments under the Contract Act was also inapplicable because the adjustment arose in a statutory refund context, not in an ordinary contractual debt situation, and the assessee had objected to the proposed adjustment.
Conclusion: The time-barred demand could not be deducted from the refund due to the assessee, and the Department's attempt to adjust the amount was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order quashing the departmental demand and adjustment was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory recovery provision authorising deduction of sums "payable" cannot be used to recover or appropriate a demand that is barred by limitation, because a time-barred amount is not legally recoverable.