TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether a purchaser claiming refund under Section 11B was bound by the six months' limitation from the date of purchase even where duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer; (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 11B excluding the period of limitation where duty was paid under protest applied to a purchaser's refund claim.
Issue (i): Whether a purchaser claiming refund under Section 11B was bound by the six months' limitation from the date of purchase even where duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer?
Analysis: After the 1991 amendment, the Explanation to Section 11B enabled a purchaser to claim refund, and the statutory scheme treated the purchaser's relevant date as the date of purchase. The Court held that the proviso excluding limitation where duty was paid under protest was framed in wide terms and was not confined to claims by manufacturers. Since the proviso did not exclude purchasers and there was no separate mechanism for a purchaser to lodge protest, the manufacturer's protest was sufficient to attract the proviso for the refund claim.
Conclusion: The purchaser was not bound by the six months' limitation where the duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer.
Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 11B excluding the period of limitation where duty was paid under protest applied to a purchaser's refund claim?
Analysis: The wording of the proviso was held to cover all refund claims under Section 11B. The Court emphasized that the proviso did not restrict its operation to manufacturers, and its broad language extended the benefit to a purchaser as well, subject to satisfaction of the substantive refund conditions in Section 11B that the duty was collected from or paid by the claimant and the incidence had not been passed on.
Conclusion: The proviso applied to a purchaser's refund claim as well.
Final Conclusion: The majority view of the Tribunal was rejected, the matter was sent back for reconsideration under the correct legal position, and the purchaser's refund claim was held to be capable of being examined without the six months' bar where duty had been paid under protest.
Ratio Decidendi: The limitation bar in Section 11B does not apply to a purchaser's refund claim where the duty was paid under protest by the manufacturer, because the proviso is of general application to refund claims under the section.
TaxTMI 
