Refund rule applicability and reference on question of law in a claim governed by amended versus repealed provisions

The note addresses whether a refund claim is governed by the repealed Rule 11 read with Rule 173-J or by the amended Rule 11 where the claim is made after amendment, and whether the authorities had power to grant refund. The second question was treated as already settled by an earlier Division Bench decision and was not referred. The first issue was considered a referable question of law because it concerned the legal position governing when the right to refund arises and which rule applies to the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application raised a referable question of law on the applicability of the repealed Rule 11 read with Rule 173-J or the amended Rule 11 to the refund claim, and whether any reference was warranted on the Tribunal's view that the authorities had no power to grant refund.

Analysis: The second point was not referred because the issue was already settled by an earlier Division Bench decision and therefore did not call for a reference. On the first point, the controversy was confined to the legal position governing the refund claim, namely whether the right to refund arose with payment of duty under the repealed rules or whether the amended Rule 11 applied to a claim made after the amendment came into force. That question was treated as requiring reference to the High Court.

Conclusion: No reference was made on the second point, while the first question of law was referred to the High Court for decision.

---