9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil Appeal No. 2416 of 2000 : On 5-7-1996, the appellant filed an application for refund claim of Rs. 1,48,58,630.94 after the final assessment was completed. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 9-7-1996, as to why the claim should not be rejected for non-compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After considering the reply filed by the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by his order dated 17th July, 1996 rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground that the refund claim had been made beyond the period of limitation and that appellant was unable to show that the amount of excise duty for which the refund was claimed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally assessed. Sub-rule (5) provides that "when the duty leviable on the goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of these Rules, the duty provisionally assessed shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed, and if the duty provisionally assessed falls short of or is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the assessee shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be". Any recoveries or refunds consequent upon the adjustment under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B will not be governed by Section 11A or Section 11B, as the case may be." 3.In order to get over the situation arising under Mafatlal Industries Ltd., (supra) vide notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-6-1999, an amendment was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant before the court was justified. 5.Shri Verma fairly concedes that the proviso introduced in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B cannot be said to be retrospective in operation. He, however, contends that on the date on which the proviso was brought into force, i.e. 25-6-1999, the refund claim was still pending with the departmental authorities and, therefore, it had to be adjudicated in accordance with the law as it became enforceable from 25-6-1999. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted. Merely because the departmental authorities took a long time to process the application for refund, the right of the appellant does not get defeated by the subsequent amendment made in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B. The Commissioner of Central Excise and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
