https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43612 The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to issue a show cause notice for the recovery of erroneously refunded duty to a petitioner-company. Relying on Sections 11A and 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Court emphasized the obligation of manufacturers to demonstrate that they have not passed on the duty burden to others to be eligible for a refund. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner could raise objections before the Assistant Collector for further consideration. en-us Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:40:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43612 The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to issue a show cause notice for the recovery of erroneously refunded duty to a petitioner-company. Relying on Sections 11A and 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Court emphasized the obligation of manufacturers to demonstrate that they have not passed on the duty burden to others to be eligible for a refund. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner could raise objections before the Assistant Collector for further consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43612