https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267230 An exporter to Nepal who consciously chose the duty-paid export procedure under Notification No. 20/2004-C.E. (N.T.) could not later switch to the bond-based procedure under Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and claim refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the cited Supreme Court ruling did not create a third route for refund after export had been completed under the selected procedure. It also found no provision permitting normal rebate of duty paid on such exports to Nepal, particularly where the shipping bills and assessments had not been challenged. Refund was therefore unavailable. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267230 An exporter to Nepal who consciously chose the duty-paid export procedure under Notification No. 20/2004-C.E. (N.T.) could not later switch to the bond-based procedure under Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and claim refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the cited Supreme Court ruling did not create a third route for refund after export had been completed under the selected procedure. It also found no provision permitting normal rebate of duty paid on such exports to Nepal, particularly where the shipping bills and assessments had not been challenged. Refund was therefore unavailable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267230