https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351809 A refund claim under Rule 191BB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Notification No. 33/90-CE (NT), was rejected because the earlier tribunal order had upheld the assessee's challenge to the duty demand under Rule 9(2) but expressly left the Department free to enforce the bonds furnished by the assessee. As no appeal had been filed against that order, the later bond enforcement and appropriation of the refund amount were treated as consequences of a subsisting order, not as a mere obiter dictum. The challenge to the appropriation therefore failed, and the amount was validly adjusted in favour of the Revenue. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:08:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351809 A refund claim under Rule 191BB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Notification No. 33/90-CE (NT), was rejected because the earlier tribunal order had upheld the assessee's challenge to the duty demand under Rule 9(2) but expressly left the Department free to enforce the bonds furnished by the assessee. As no appeal had been filed against that order, the later bond enforcement and appropriation of the refund amount were treated as consequences of a subsisting order, not as a mere obiter dictum. The challenge to the appropriation therefore failed, and the amount was validly adjusted in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351809