Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Ajni Interiors vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2021

Hasmukh Tobacco Products vs Ahmedabad-Ii on 7 February, 2023

6. Being aggrieved, Revenue filed the present appeal on the ground that under the erstwhile Section 35FF (as substituted by way of amendment w.e.f. 6-8-2014), interest is payable on filing of refund claim, if not granted within three months from the date of receipt of the appellate order. As the show cause notice was issued to the assessee prior to 6-8-2014, the erstwhile Section 35FF will be applicable. It is further urged that the amount deposited in the year 2015 is not by way of pre-deposit, as 6 Excise Appeal Nos. 10828 & 10957 of 2021-SM defined in Section 35F of the Act. Reliance is placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ajni Interiors v. UoI, wherein it has been held that if any payment is made as a pre-condition for exercising the statutory right, it can be termed as pre-deposit. However, it cannot be equated with voluntary deposit of Excise duty paid even during the course of investigation and prior to show cause notice or adjudication to assert that it is pre-deposit. Further, reliance is placed on the finding of the Adjudicating Authority.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore ... on 22 March, 2024

8. The Ld. DR reiterated the finding of the adjudicating authority and appellate authority. Ld. DR submits that the refund claim was filed on 14.03.2019 which is beyond the relevant dated prescribed under Section 11B (5)(ec) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the matter of M/s Ajni Interiors Vs Union of India & one another (reported in 2019 (9) TMI 529- GUJRAT)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi ... vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt Ltd on 7 October, 2021

6. Being aggrieved, Revenue filed the present appeal on the ground that under the erstwhile Section 35FF (as substituted by way of amendment w.e.f. 06.08.2014), interest is payable on filing of refund claim, if not granted within three months from the date of receipt of the appellate order. As the show cause notice was issued to the assessee prior to 06.08.2014, the erstwhile Section 35FF will be applicable. It is further urged that the amount deposited in the year 2015 is not by way of pre-deposit, as defined in Section 35F of the Act. Reliance is placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ajni Interiors vs. UoI, wherein it has been held that if any payment is made as a pre-condition for exercising the statutory right, it can be termed as pre-deposit. However, it cannot be equated with voluntary deposit of Excise duty paid even during the course of 4 Service Tax Appeal No. 50992 of 2020-SM investigation and prior to show cause notice or adjudication to assert that it is pre-deposit. Further, reliance is placed on the finding of the Adjudicating Authority.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M G Motors vs Alwar on 18 September, 2023

8. Having heard rival contentions and perusing the entire record including appeal memo, final order dated 13.11.2019 as has been obtained through the case information system, it is observed that this Tribunal had set aside the entire demand pertaining to the extended 5 ST/54825/2023 period of limitation prior to 2012. The only demand re-determined for the normal period is for an amount of Rs.1,02,309/-. This is also observed that pending adjudication after issuance of show cause notice dated 15.10.2014 the appellant had deposited Rs.5,25,141/- alongwith interest Rs.2,77,582/- vide two separate challans dated 5.12.2014. After order of this Tribunal for confirming demand for normal period, the appellant had filed application dated 3.9.2021 claiming refund of amount deposited minus the amount as was to be confirmed for the normal period. The said refund application has been rejected on the ground that the amount was not the amount under section 35F of the Central Act.1944. Also while relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s.Ajni Interiors (supra) that refund claim is held to be filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The said order has been confirmed vide order under challenge. Thus following need to be adjudicated:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shah Tiles Pvt Ltd vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 24 November, 2022

4. Learned AR vehemently argued that the relevant date for the purpose of refund claim would be the date on which the Commissioner(Appeal) passed the order remanding the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority after allowing the benefit of limitation. Learned AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ajni Interiors Vs. Union of India in SCA No. 10435/18 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court - SLP (Civil) Diary No. 3952/2020 .
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1