Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Alcatel Modi Network System Limited on 1 November, 2007

Suryauday Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Secunderabad - G S T on 29 April, 2025

In the case of Parle Agro Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST, Noida [2022 (380 ELT 219 (Tri-All)], the Tribunal, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Gurgaon Vs Alcatel Modi Network System Ltd [2008 (221) ELT 358 (P & H)], held that any amount deposited during the pendency of investigation and proceedings, if the same are not adjudged as duty, fine or penalty then the amount that is not adjudged as duty, fine or penalty is to be treated as revenue deposit and the provisions of refund of duty shall not be applicable to the same. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paras, the amount paid has not been treated as duty and it was only later on appropriated towards the payment, which was in relation to reversal of credit. Moreover, the said appropriation itself was set aside by the Tribunal when the entire order was set aside.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner vs M/S Uniproducts (India) Limited on 27 January, 2009

In support of the view reliance may be placed on the Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Bharat Box Factory Ltd., 2007 (218) E.L.T. 355 (P&H); Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Varinder Agro Chemical Ltd., 2007 (219) E.L.T. 160 (P&H); and C.E.A. No. 1 of 2005 4 Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon v. Alcatel Modi Network System Ltd., 2008 (221) E.L.T. 358 (P&H).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amar Enterprises vs Commissioner, Central Excise & ... on 8 April, 2022

7. It becomes clear from the above discussion that the provision of Section 11B of Central Excise Act is not applicable to the refund in question. The Department cannot be allowed to retain the said amount. For the purpose I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Gurgaon vs. Alcatel Modi Network System Ltd. reported as 2008 (221) ELT 358 (P&H) and also the final order of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad reported as 2007 (213) ELT 577 (Tri) wherein it was held that the amount which was deposited during the initial stages of proceedings cannot be retained by the Revenue and if the same is retained 7 E/51715/2021 then such retention is without the authority of law, that the same will amount violation of Section 365 of Constitution of India. Department also cannot be allowed to be unjustly enriched by retaining the amount for which it had no authority of law to collect.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1