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 the excise duty paid by the appellant could be treated as provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the refund application was within limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: Provisional assessment under Rule 9B was permissible only if the assessee had requested it in writing and the proper officer had directed provisional assessment, or if the proper officer, being dissatisfied with self-assessment, had required resort to provisional assessment. No material showed any such request or direction. Documents suggesting that the price remained provisional could not override the statutory preconditions. Since the duty was not paid provisionally, the refund limitation under the explanation to Section 11-B had to be computed from the date of payment of duty and not from final assessment.
Conclusion: The duty was not paid provisionally and the refund claim was beyond one year from the date of payment. The claim was therefore time-barred and the appellant's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund limitation under Section 11-B extends from final assessment only where duty has been validly paid provisionally in accordance with Rule 9B; absent compliance with the statutory conditions for provisional assessment, the claim must be computed from the date of payment and is barred if filed beyond one year.