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 a refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is governed by the general limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so as to render the provision for adjustment under Rule 9B nugatory.
Analysis: Section 11B is a general refund provision, whereas Rule 9B(5) is a special provision dealing specifically with provisional assessment and the adjustment of duty on finalisation. A construction that applies the residuary clause of Section 11B to every provisional assessment would defeat the operation of Rule 9B(5) and create an unreasonable result, because refund may become barred before final assessment is completed. The provisions were therefore required to be read harmoniously so that the special scheme of provisional assessment remains effective and is not rendered redundant by the general limitation rule.
Conclusion: The refund claim arising on finalisation of provisional assessment was not barred by limitation and was maintainable under Rule 9B(5), as the special provision prevailed for that class of cases.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special rule governs provisional assessment, it must be given effect by harmonious construction and cannot be defeated by a general refund limitation provision so as to render the special rule nugatory.