https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115612 The court held that a purchaser, who did not directly pay Excise Duty to the government, was not entitled to claim a refund before the statutory amendment. The judgment emphasized that only manufacturers or producers who paid the duty directly could claim refunds. The retrospective effect of Section 11B did not extend to purchasers, as highlighted in the case law. The Tribunal ruled that the purchaser's refund claim filed before the amendment was not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This decision clarifies the limitations on refund claims by purchasers and distinguishes between the liabilities of manufacturers/producers and purchasers in claiming Excise Duty refunds. en-us Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2012 14:08:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115612 The court held that a purchaser, who did not directly pay Excise Duty to the government, was not entitled to claim a refund before the statutory amendment. The judgment emphasized that only manufacturers or producers who paid the duty directly could claim refunds. The retrospective effect of Section 11B did not extend to purchasers, as highlighted in the case law. The Tribunal ruled that the purchaser's refund claim filed before the amendment was not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This decision clarifies the limitations on refund claims by purchasers and distinguishes between the liabilities of manufacturers/producers and purchasers in claiming Excise Duty refunds. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115612