https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108478 The Tribunal referred a case involving conflicting interpretations of Rule 224(2A) on levy of duty rates for clearances made on Budget day. The appellant, a rubber products manufacturer, dispatched goods after 11 AM on Budget day, paying duty at one rate, later revised. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, citing duty payment at the enhanced rate. The Tribunal noted conflicting views on the undertaking's significance and referred the matter to a Larger Bench to resolve the interpretation of the undertaking under Rule 224(2A and Rule 9A(1) of the Central Excise Rules, aiming to clarify duty rate revisions for clearances on Budget day. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:55:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108478 The Tribunal referred a case involving conflicting interpretations of Rule 224(2A) on levy of duty rates for clearances made on Budget day. The appellant, a rubber products manufacturer, dispatched goods after 11 AM on Budget day, paying duty at one rate, later revised. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, citing duty payment at the enhanced rate. The Tribunal noted conflicting views on the undertaking's significance and referred the matter to a Larger Bench to resolve the interpretation of the undertaking under Rule 224(2A and Rule 9A(1) of the Central Excise Rules, aiming to clarify duty rate revisions for clearances on Budget day. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108478