Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Ajni Interiors vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2019

M/S Citizen Metalloys Ltd vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2021

10. Mr. Parth Divyeshwar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondent authorities as also the learned Tribunal have rightly held that the claim of the petitioner was time barred and therefore, could not be entertained. He submitted that no explanation has come forth from the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the refund application. By referring to the unreported decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajni Interiors v. Union of India and others in Special Civil Application No.10435 of 2018 dated 04.09.2019, it was submitted that the law on the issue is settled and it has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).3952 of 2020 on 20.02.2020.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

M/S Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2021

In the decision of Ajni Interiors (supra), of course, this High Court has held that once the amount is paid by way of excise duty and not as a pre-deposit and not even under protest, the period of limitation under section 11B of the Act would Page 35 of 57 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 05 04:05:28 IST 2021 C/SCA/23348/2019 CAV JUDGMENT apply in case of any refund claim. This decision in the instant case is not to be applied by this Court, as there are other decisions, which will need to be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, the amount paid by the petitioner herein is not the pre-deposit. It is a rebate claim for the duty paid for export made. It is not even the case of the petitioner that it is either pre-deposit or it is a pre-deposit made under protest.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

M/S Citizen Metalloys Ltd vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2021

10. Mr. Parth Divyeshwar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondent authorities as also the learned Tribunal have rightly held that the claim of the petitioner was time barred and therefore, could not be entertained. He submitted that no explanation has come forth from the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the refund application. By referring to the unreported decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajni Interiors v. Union of India and others in Special Civil Application No.10435 of 2018 dated 04.09.2019, it was submitted that the law on the issue is settled and it has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).3952 of 2020 on 20.02.2020.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

M/S Garden Silk Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2021

In the decision of Ajni Interiors (supra), of course, this High Court has held that once the amount is paid by way of excise duty and not as a pre-deposit and not even under protest, the period of limitation under section 11B of the Act would Page 35 of 57 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 14 01:04:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/23348/2019 CAV JUDGMENT apply in case of any refund claim. This decision in the instant case is not to be applied by this Court, as there are other decisions, which will need to be taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, the amount paid by the petitioner herein is not the pre-deposit. It is a rebate claim for the duty paid for export made. It is not even the case of the petitioner that it is either pre-deposit or it is a pre-deposit made under protest.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1