Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)The Police Act, 1949
Section 83 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
M/S Goldy Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & Anr. on 14 July, 2023
9. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the
Revenue has mainly relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Goldy
Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise
[(2023) 10 Centax 189 (Del.)], which has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in
2025 (4) TMI 1186 - SC. I find that in the above case
cited by the Revenue, the amount paid by the
appellant was considered as duty and the provisions
of Section 11B were made applicable to that deposit
wherein the issue of duty paid under a mistaken
notion had not been raised and not recorded in the
Order passed by the Hon'ble Court, which is not the
case in the present case. In the present case, the
amount deposited during the course of investigation
was not as a voluntary payment, but a deposit made
under a mistaken notion as to their central excise duty
liability, at the insistence of the Department, as
specifically pointed out by the appellant, and thus,
would not amount to 'duty'. Thus, I find that the facts
and circumstances of the decision cited by the
Revenue are distinguishable from the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand.
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Section 240 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 244 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Hind Agro Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs And Ors. [Along ... on 30 August, 2007
The
Karnataka High Court also considered the judgment
of Delhi High Court in case of Hind Agro Industries
Limited (supra 2) and the judgment of Mafatlal
Industries Ltd. (supra 1) and in no certain terms
made it clear that where the tax is admittedly paid
as a mistake of law, the limitation will not come in
the way for refund.