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 miscellaneous application seeking refund of the pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable before the Tribunal when the refund claim had already been rejected by the Assistant Collector and no appeal had been filed against that order.
Analysis: The application sought refund on the footing that the earlier appeal had been allowed by way of remand. The record showed that the applicants had separately pursued a refund claim before the Assistant Collector, who rejected it by a detailed order. As no appeal was filed against that rejection, the Tribunal held that a fresh refund request before it could not be entertained.
Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was not maintainable and was dismissed.