TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 37B orders apply prospectively from notification date; refunds subject to Section 11B unjust enrichment bar</h1> SC held that a binding order under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act becomes effective only from the date it is duly notified or published, ... Power under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act - effective date for raising the demand by the revenue - Departmental Clarification - HELD THAT:- It is submitted that according to the existing practice, any action taken under Section 37B is duly notified or published and it takes effect from the date of notification or publication in view of the fact that the notification or publication of the classification made pursuant to the Board's order dated 24th September, 1992 was only on 5-11-1992, the date of issuance of the trade notice, it must be held that the effective date for raising the demand by the revenue cannot be any date prior to 5-11-1992. This conclusion is reinforced by use of the word 'henceforth' by the Board. The Board's order excluded the intention of making the same effective from any earlier date. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, to be accepted. We are informed that the duty has already been paid by the appellant. That being so, the discipline of amended Section 11B has to be followed for claiming the refund and it is for the appellant to show that the duty has not been passed on to the consumers to sustain its claim for refund. Consequently, these appeals are allowed in the above terms and the Tribunal's orders are set aside. Issues involved:The effective date for raising demand under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the application of Section 11A in the present case.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Effective date for raising demand under Section 37BThe appellant contended that the demand could not be from any date prior to the issuance of trade notice No. 29 on 5-11-1992, which notified the reclassification. It was argued that actions under Section 37B are effective from the date of notification or publication, as per existing practice. The Board's order dated 24th September, 1992, was only published on 5-11-1992, and hence, the demand by the revenue cannot be prior to this date. The use of the word 'henceforth' by the Board also supported this interpretation. The Court accepted this submission, holding that the demand cannot be from any date before 5-11-1992.Issue 2: Application of Section 11A and refund claimIt was noted that the duty had already been paid by the appellant. The Court emphasized that the discipline of amended Section 11B must be followed for claiming a refund, and it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate that the duty has not been passed on to consumers to support the refund claim. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were set aside.This judgment clarifies the significance of the effective date for raising demands under Section 37B and the requirements for claiming a refund under Section 11B, emphasizing the burden of proof on the appellant regarding passing on the duty to consumers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
