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 refund of central excise duty paid on clearance of a reconditioned compressor was governed by Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, or whether it could be claimed as refund of an erroneous payment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Analysis: The compressor had been subjected to countervailing duty on import and was subsequently brought into the factory under D-3 declaration, reconditioned, and cleared. On these facts, no central excise duty was required to be paid again on clearance. The payment of central excise duty on such clearance was therefore an erroneous payment. A refund of such erroneous payment could be pursued under the statutory refund provision within the prescribed limitation period, and recourse to Rule 173L was not necessary.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee; the refund claim was maintainable under Section 11B, and the appeal was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The order affirms that an unintended payment of central excise duty on reconditioned goods is refundable under the general refund provision, subject to limitation, without resort to the reprocessing refund rule.
Ratio Decidendi: Where central excise duty is paid by mistake on goods on which no further excise duty is leviable, refund lies under the statutory refund provision within limitation and is not confined to the special rule governing remission or refund after reprocessing.