Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Union Of India vs Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 4 February, 2000
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find substantial force in the submissions of learned Senior Departmental Representative that the refund of the duty claimed by the Respondent in Appeal No. C/620/95-N.B. has not attained finality as the matter was challenged first before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Assistant Collector's Order granting the refund and subsequently before the Appellate Tribunal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter did not end here also as the Tribunal also rejected the Appeal of the Revenue relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Ltd. The matter finally reached the Apex Court which has allowed the appeals holding that the appeals are covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court has remanded the matter by observing as under :-
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Shillong vs Woodcraft Products Ltd. on 9 April, 2002
Learned Senior Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Woodcraft Products Ltd. - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that "upon the reversal by this Court of the Tribunal's Order, the assessee was bound in law to restitute the amounts of such refund to the Revenue".
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 11B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
6. In view of this specific direction given by the Apex Court, the matter has to be examined as to whether burden of duty has been passed on by the Respondents. Moreover, in both the paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Supreme Court has categorically held that all pending matters shall be governed by the law declared in Mafatlal Industries case notwithstanding that the tax or duty has been refunded. The present matter had not attained finality as the Appeal filed by the Revenue was pending when the amendment was made in Section 27 of the Customs Act. We observe that in the present matter also the Adjudicating Authority has not considered this aspect. We, therefore, remand this matter also to the Adjudicating Authority to examine as to whether the incidence of duty has been passed on by the respondents to other persons, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing them.
1