https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116550 A duty demand previously struck down by the Supreme Court could not be revived to defeat a refund claim by relying on Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Sections 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 2001. Because the refund-rejection proceedings began only after the Finance Act, 2001 came into force, the Tribunal held that the earlier demand was not a pending proceeding capable of revival. The saving provision could not be used to resurrect a demand that had already ceased to survive when set aside by the Supreme Court, and the refund rejection was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116550 A duty demand previously struck down by the Supreme Court could not be revived to defeat a refund claim by relying on Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Sections 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 2001. Because the refund-rejection proceedings began only after the Finance Act, 2001 came into force, the Tribunal held that the earlier demand was not a pending proceeding capable of revival. The saving provision could not be used to resurrect a demand that had already ceased to survive when set aside by the Supreme Court, and the refund rejection was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116550