Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai Vs Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that separate notice u/s. 11A of the Central Excise Act not required when the order-in-original sanctioning the refund came set aside in a proceedings u/s 35E of the Central Excise Act.
Facts- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No.186 of 2008 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which the Appellate Tribunal held that the show cause notice u/s. 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is required to be issued in case of erroneous refund of the duty, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.
The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether the separate notice u/s. 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of the amount when an erroneous refund is granted through the speaking order is reviewed u/s. 35E of the Act?
Conclusion- Held that once the order in original sanctioning the refund came to be set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Act and the proceedings under Section 35E was initiated within the time prescribed under Section 35E of the Act, thereafter there is no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act as observed by the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court on quashing and setting aside the order in original sanctioning the refund in exercise of powers under Section 35E of the Act which otherwise is prescribed under the Act within the time stipulated under Section 35E of the Act, thereafter necessary consequence shall follow and thereafter there is no question of any refund pursuant to order in original.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.