https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167611 A refund granted in compliance with an unchallenged High Court direction could not be treated as an erroneous refund under Rule 10. The order records that the court had already accepted the factory accountant's figures and that breakage in crockery transport was inevitable, so the 10% breakage allowance and related insurance cover were upheld. It further states that if the predecessor's order was thought to be wrong in law, the proper remedy was statutory review under Section 35-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, not unilateral disallowance by the successor officer. The impugned order was set aside and the refund restored. en-us Thu, 23 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:39:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167611 A refund granted in compliance with an unchallenged High Court direction could not be treated as an erroneous refund under Rule 10. The order records that the court had already accepted the factory accountant's figures and that breakage in crockery transport was inevitable, so the 10% breakage allowance and related insurance cover were upheld. It further states that if the predecessor's order was thought to be wrong in law, the proper remedy was statutory review under Section 35-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, not unilateral disallowance by the successor officer. The impugned order was set aside and the refund restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167611