2019 (4) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] governs the rule of refund as contemplated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - In view of the binding president of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries case, except where unconstitutionality of a provision under the levy was created, no refund is admissible if filed beyond the prescribed limit stipulated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed.
DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Shri Rajiv Luhia, C.A. for the Appellant Shri S.B. Mane, Asst. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER SUVENDU KUMAR PATI: Refund claim of the amount erroneously paid towards "renting of immovable property being residen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id, which is contrary to Section 265 of the Constitution of India, should be treated as deposit and refundable accordingly to the appellant by setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned AR for the respondent-department Shri S.B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner, in response to such submission had argued with reference to the decision passed by the Larger Bench of CESTAT, Chandigarh in Veer Overseas Vs. CCE, Panchkula reported in 2018 (4) TMI 910 - CESTAT, CHD-LB that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will govern all claim of refund, for which order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable and needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides and perused .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the regime of law and not for abrogating it. Even while acting in exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore the law nor can it over-ride it. The power under Article 226 is conceived to serve the ends of law and not to transgress them." In the same para 99, in the preceding sub-para it was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: "The said enactments including Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 27 of the Customs Act do constitute "law" within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X