https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216043 The Government upheld the demand for recovery of excess rebate and penalties in a case involving erroneous rebate claims due to a tariff rate discrepancy. The applicant's argument that the Department should have appealed against initial orders was dismissed based on precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's ruling, supporting the recovery of erroneously refunded duty under Section 11A. The revision application was rejected, and the excess duty paid was deemed a voluntary deposit, not eligible for further rebate. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216043 The Government upheld the demand for recovery of excess rebate and penalties in a case involving erroneous rebate claims due to a tariff rate discrepancy. The applicant's argument that the Department should have appealed against initial orders was dismissed based on precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's ruling, supporting the recovery of erroneously refunded duty under Section 11A. The revision application was rejected, and the excess duty paid was deemed a voluntary deposit, not eligible for further rebate. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216043