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 arising from cessation of production under Rule 96ZGG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was governed by that self-contained scheme or was liable to be rejected as time-barred by treating it as a claim under Rule 173S and applying the limitation under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: Rule 96ZGG provides for recalculation of duty when an assessee under the compounded levy scheme stops production for a period, and the rule itself contemplates adjustment of duty paid against duty payable for that period. Where excess duty is found to have been paid, refund follows under the same provision. The refund claim in the present matter arose from that scheme alone. The characterization of the claim as one under Rule 173S was incorrect, and the question to be addressed was whether the special rule attracted the general limitation provision at all. By proceeding on the wrong premise, the order under challenge suffered from misdirection.
Conclusion: The refund claim was to be considered under Rule 96ZGG as a self-contained provision, and the impugned order applying the wrong rule and limitation could not stand. The matter was remanded for fresh decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special refund provision is self-contained and expressly provides for adjustment and refund on cessation of production, the claim must be determined under that provision and not re-characterised so as to attract an unrelated limitation regime.