https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120758 Under Rule 224(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, clearances made on the Budget day pursuant to an express undertaking to pay any enhanced duty attracted liability at the increased rate once the duty was raised after the Budget proposal. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench ruling in Vikrant Tyres and held that the undertaking was binding, so the assessee could not repudiate differential duty on the ground that the increase was notified after clearance. It also held that Rule 224(2A) was a special pre-Budget/Budget clearance provision within the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was not ultra vires. The refund claim therefore failed. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:27:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120758 Under Rule 224(2A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, clearances made on the Budget day pursuant to an express undertaking to pay any enhanced duty attracted liability at the increased rate once the duty was raised after the Budget proposal. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench ruling in Vikrant Tyres and held that the undertaking was binding, so the assessee could not repudiate differential duty on the ground that the increase was notified after clearance. It also held that Rule 224(2A) was a special pre-Budget/Budget clearance provision within the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was not ultra vires. The refund claim therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120758