9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for recovery of erroneously refunded amount. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking recovery of an amount erroneously refunded to them. The petitioner argued that the refund was granted based on directions from the Appellate Commissioner in an appeal. The respondents, represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel, initially claimed the notice was a protective measure in case of success in their appeal before the Tribunal. However, upon further examination, it was acknowledged that any recovery could only happen if the order was modified in the appeal proceedings. Realizing the notice was unnecessary and beyond the scope of power under Section 11A, the respondents decided to withdraw the notice. The respondents, through their Standing Counsel, filed a memo indicating their intention to withdraw the notice. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that with the department withdrawing the notice, the writ petition had become unnecessary. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, noting that the department should take necessary action to withdraw the show cause notice within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
|
