https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73751 The case focused on the rejection of a refund claim due to lack of evidence of goods usage as diesel engine parts, resulting in a partial refund. It addressed issues such as the time-limit for serving notice on duty erroneously refunded under Section 11A, the conflict between Sections 11A and 35E on duty recovery, and the Assistant Collector's authority to issue recovery notices. The judgment emphasized adherence to Section 11A procedures for valid recovery actions and highlighted the Collector (Appeals) cannot pass duty recovery orders without proper notice under Section 11A to prevent undue exactions. en-us Mon, 02 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:23:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73751 The case focused on the rejection of a refund claim due to lack of evidence of goods usage as diesel engine parts, resulting in a partial refund. It addressed issues such as the time-limit for serving notice on duty erroneously refunded under Section 11A, the conflict between Sections 11A and 35E on duty recovery, and the Assistant Collector's authority to issue recovery notices. The judgment emphasized adherence to Section 11A procedures for valid recovery actions and highlighted the Collector (Appeals) cannot pass duty recovery orders without proper notice under Section 11A to prevent undue exactions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73751