https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341178 Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arose from a dispute over annual production capacity fixation under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, including whether Rule 3 or Rule 5 governed the APC determination. The Tribunal did not decide the merits on limitation, the effect of the earlier APC order for later periods, or whether the incidence of duty had been passed on. Instead, all issues were remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in the light of applicable law, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:57:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341178 Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arose from a dispute over annual production capacity fixation under the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, including whether Rule 3 or Rule 5 governed the APC determination. The Tribunal did not decide the merits on limitation, the effect of the earlier APC order for later periods, or whether the incidence of duty had been passed on. Instead, all issues were remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in the light of applicable law, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341178