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 department could sustain proceedings to recover an allegedly erroneous refund when the application under Section 35E(4) was served within six months, and whether the absence of a separate notice under Section 11A barred recovery.
Analysis: The refund had been sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, and the department sought reversal through proceedings under Section 35E(4). The Tribunal held that recovery of an erroneously refunded amount is governed by the limitation principle recognised under Section 11A, and that proceedings under Section 35E cannot be used to bypass that limitation. On the facts, the application challenging the refund was served on the assessee within six months from the date of refund, so the proceedings were within time. The Tribunal therefore found no merit in the plea that the demand was barred by limitation.
Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, and the recovery proceedings were held to be valid in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the order sustaining recovery of the refund was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Erroneously refunded duty can be recovered only through proceedings initiated within the applicable six-month limitation, and Section 35E cannot be invoked to defeat the limitation applicable to recovery of duty.