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 refund of excise duty paid on the cost of third packing was liable to be sustained, and whether the refund could be granted without examining the applicability of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The refund claim had been rejected without issuing notice or giving the assessee an opportunity to establish entitlement. The appellate order accepting the refund was found to suffer from no infirmity on the question whether the cost of the third packing formed part of the assessable value, because the third packing was only for protecting the smaller cartons during transit and the smaller carton containing 50 syringes was the unit of wholesale sale. At the same time, the grant of refund had to comply with the amended statutory requirements under Section 11B(2).
Conclusion: The refund order was sustained in principle, but actual grant of refund was made subject to due notice and examination of the applicability and consequence of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed in dislodging the refund entitlement, but the matter was sent to the adjudicating authority for verification of the statutory bar before refund was paid.
Ratio Decidendi: Where refund entitlement is otherwise justified, it must still be tested against the mandatory requirements governing refund under the applicable statutory provision before disbursement.