https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98141 Administrative delay in implementing a concluded refund order does not revive the dispute as a pending proceeding under amended Section 11B. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's rectification request merely sought re-argument of a matter already considered and rejected, with no patent mistake apparent on the record, so the rectification application was not maintainable. It further held that its reliance on Mafatlal Industries was consistent with the Supreme Court's majority view, and that concluded refund proceedings could not be reopened through a reference or stay plea under the amended refund provisions. The Revenue's applications were rejected, and the earlier refund directions remained enforceable. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:08:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98141 Administrative delay in implementing a concluded refund order does not revive the dispute as a pending proceeding under amended Section 11B. The Tribunal held that the Revenue's rectification request merely sought re-argument of a matter already considered and rejected, with no patent mistake apparent on the record, so the rectification application was not maintainable. It further held that its reliance on Mafatlal Industries was consistent with the Supreme Court's majority view, and that concluded refund proceedings could not be reopened through a reference or stay plea under the amended refund provisions. The Revenue's applications were rejected, and the earlier refund directions remained enforceable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98141