2004 (12) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee, Consultant, Shri P.S. Mahapatra, Advocate for Appellant and Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR for Respondent. Mr. Mishra raises a preliminary point that in present case, the refund application is not maintainable as it has been presented by the purchaser prior to amendment from 20th September, 91. The purchaser was no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase laws submitted by rival parties. Certain amendments to Section 11B were made effective from 20th September, 91 by Central Excise and Customs Law amendment Act 1991 for the date of enforcement of the amendment and it was made effective from 20th September, 91. By virtue of section 11B(B) relevant duty means and under this head (e), the provisions have been made for purchaser in case of a perso .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty to the Union of India directly is in no position to claim refund from the Union of India because the plaintiff had made no payment to the Union of India. It may perhaps enforce a claim if all, other conditions are satisfied, against the defendant No. 3) . The contention of learned advocate for appellant is that the provisions have been made retrospective effect is not tenable of the case o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X