Distinct operation of Sections 11A and 35E in erroneous refund recovery; Tribunal directed to state the question of law.

Sections 11A and 35E of the Central Excise Act were treated as operating in distinct fields, with Section 35E described as an independent revisional mechanism for directing action before the appellate authority. The Tribunal had held that recovery of an erroneous refund was barred by limitation because no notice under Section 11A had been issued, effectively treating Section 35E as subject to Section 11A. The Court considered that linkage inconsistent with the statutory scheme and directed a reference of the formulated question of law to the High Court. The petition was allowed, the cross-objections were dismissed, and the statement of case was ordered to be drawn up.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal should be directed to refer the formulated question of law to the High Court, and whether the statutory remedy under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ains the revisional mechanism under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in cases of alleged erroneous refund.

Analysis: The order records a prima facie view that Sections 11A and 35E operate in distinct fields. It notes that the Tribunal had treated recovery of erroneous refund as barred by limitation in the absence of a notice under Section 11A, and that this approach appeared to proceed on the footing that Section 35E was subject to Section 11A. The Court viewed Section 35E as an independent machinery for revisional action and for directing an application before the appellate authority, and considered the linkage with Section 11A to be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act.

Outcome: The petition was allowed, the cross-objections were dismissed, and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to refer the question of law to the High Court and draw up the statement of case.

---