https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244919 Earlier abatement claims under Rule 96ZQ(7) were treated as refund applications under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because the rule operated as a machinery provision for determining and sanctioning abatement while the refund consequence remained governed by Section 11B. On that basis, interest under Section 11BB was linked to the date of receipt of the original claims, not the later date when papers were furnished after the sanction order. The Tribunal also noted the inconsistency in the department's stand on which authority was competent to sanction the claim, and held that the claims filed on 29-3-2000 and 27-1-2000 were the relevant applications, subject to verification of quantum. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:00:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244919 Earlier abatement claims under Rule 96ZQ(7) were treated as refund applications under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because the rule operated as a machinery provision for determining and sanctioning abatement while the refund consequence remained governed by Section 11B. On that basis, interest under Section 11BB was linked to the date of receipt of the original claims, not the later date when papers were furnished after the sanction order. The Tribunal also noted the inconsistency in the department's stand on which authority was competent to sanction the claim, and held that the claims filed on 29-3-2000 and 27-1-2000 were the relevant applications, subject to verification of quantum. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244919