https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43970 An excise rebate rejection under an exemption notification was held unsustainable because the authority had not complied with earlier directions to recalculate the rebate by first determining average production for the preceding five years and then applying Clause (2) to excess production. The impugned order also failed to give reasons showing why the claim was inadmissible under the notification. Reliance on unjust enrichment under Section 11B could not save the rejection, as that ground was not reflected in the impugned decision and the binding earlier directions had not been followed. The rejection was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with those directions. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:47:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43970 An excise rebate rejection under an exemption notification was held unsustainable because the authority had not complied with earlier directions to recalculate the rebate by first determining average production for the preceding five years and then applying Clause (2) to excess production. The impugned order also failed to give reasons showing why the claim was inadmissible under the notification. Reliance on unjust enrichment under Section 11B could not save the rejection, as that ground was not reflected in the impugned decision and the binding earlier directions had not been followed. The rejection was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with those directions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43970