https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88038 Interaction between Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was examined in the context of RT-12 assessments made on approved price lists. The Tribunal treated the Superintendent as acting within the approved valuation framework, not independently determining value, and held that any excess duty arising from such assessment had to be credited in the account current under Rule 173-I(2), rather than pursued through separate refund claims on the facts. It also held that the Revenue's reliance on earlier decisions and a later judgment did not disclose any referable question of law, as the matter turned on factual appreciation. en-us Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:12:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88038 Interaction between Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was examined in the context of RT-12 assessments made on approved price lists. The Tribunal treated the Superintendent as acting within the approved valuation framework, not independently determining value, and held that any excess duty arising from such assessment had to be credited in the account current under Rule 173-I(2), rather than pursued through separate refund claims on the facts. It also held that the Revenue's reliance on earlier decisions and a later judgment did not disclose any referable question of law, as the matter turned on factual appreciation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88038