https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387100 Where duty had been paid on exports to Bhutan, the refund claim was treated as one falling under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and rebate on exported goods was held to be covered by that provision. Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) was held to govern export without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, and could not be mechanically applied to deny refund where duty had already been paid. As the other refund conditions were not in dispute, rejection of the claim was found unsustainable and refund was directed, consistent with the principle that tax cannot be retained without authority of law. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:17:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387100 Where duty had been paid on exports to Bhutan, the refund claim was treated as one falling under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and rebate on exported goods was held to be covered by that provision. Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) was held to govern export without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, and could not be mechanically applied to deny refund where duty had already been paid. As the other refund conditions were not in dispute, rejection of the claim was found unsustainable and refund was directed, consistent with the principle that tax cannot be retained without authority of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387100