Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
Ce & Cgst Meerut-I vs Ms Gulshan Polyols Pvt Ltd on 20 August, 2024 cites

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996

15.In view of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the question whether payment of duty while appealing its 12 Excise Appeal No.70485 of 2020 imposition, is required to be construed as payment under protest, is no longer res integra. Although the said decision was rendered in the context of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the second proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is pari material to second proviso of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 160 - Cited by 1694 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 September, 2003

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.) has held that when the duty is paid under protest, the period of limitation would start to run from the date of final decision in the assessee's own case. Since in this case, the appeal was decided by the 16 Excise Appeal No.70485 of 2020 Tribunal in favour of the Appellant, on 28-10-04, the limitation period for filing refund application under Section 11B has to be counted from 28-10-04 and since the refund application has been made on 10-11-04, the same is within time. Since the refund claim is of Cenvat credit debited on 4-1-05 in RG 23A Pt. II account, in view of clause (c) of 1st proviso to Section 11B(2) of principles of unjust enrichment will not be applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next