9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and would not be governed by the proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B. The restrictions in Section 11A and Section 11B would not apply to refund claims consequent upon finalisation of provisional assessment orders. In favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2000, 2891, 8380 of 2001, 610, 611 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2003 - S. Rajendra Babu, B.N. Srikrishna and G.P. Mathur, JJ. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Ms. Nisha Bagchi, P. Manish and B.K. Prasad, Advocates, with him), for the appellants. Rajendra Singhvi, Ashok K. Singh, V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav, V. Balachandran and Satish K. Agnihotri, Advocates, for the respondents. [Judgment per : B.N. Srikrishna, J.]. - Civil Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') agreed with the view of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the department is in appeal before us. 2.In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra), a Bench of nine learned Judges of this Court held that refund claims consequent upon the adjustment under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B would not be governed by the restrictions of Section 11A or Section 11B, as the case may be. This Court observed (vide Paragraph 104) as under : "Rule 9B provides for provisional assessment in situations specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1). The goods provisionally assessed under sub-rule (1) may be cleared for home consumption or export in the same manner as the goods which are finally assessed. Sub-rule (5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... governed by the proviso introduced in sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B, and that as a consequence, the restrictions in Section 11A and Section 11B with regard to the procedure for refund would apply to the case of the appellant. The same question came for consideration of this Court in Sinkhai Synthetics Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad [2002 (143) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.)]. This Court took the view that the case would be governed by the rule laid down in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). This view has been reiterated in a subsequent judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 2533 of 2001 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. M/s. Star Paper Mills Limited) upholding the view of the Tribunal that the refund claim of the appellant before the court was ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
