Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Cce, Ghaziabad on 4 September, 2009 cites

Surbhi Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 5 December, 2006

 Chennai), for refund of the amount deposited pending investigation, the bar of unjust enrichment and limitation is not applicable, that there is no question of refund having become time barred, as since the Commissioners order confirming the duty demand had been contested, the debit of Rs. 8,00,000/- from Cenvat credit account prior to issue of show cause notice has to be treated as having been made under protest and that since the letter/ application for refund of this amount had been made within the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B from the date of the Tribunals order, the refund cannot be treated as time barred and in this regard reliance is placed on Tribunals judgment in the case of Surbhi Enterprises vs. CCE, Ahmedabad reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 588 (Tri.  Ahmd.).
Authority Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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

Honble Supreme Court, in para 83 of its judgment in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T.  247 (S.C.) has observed that  when a person proposes to contest his liability by way of appeal, revision or in the higher courts, he would naturally pay the duty, whenever he does, under protest. Relying on these observations of Honble Supreme Court, the Tribunal in the cases of CC (Prev.
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

Honble Supreme Court in case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. vs. 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 assessees own case. Since in this case, the appeal was decided by the 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 principle of unjust enrichment will not be applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Klasspak Pvt. Ltd. on 30 April, 2004

and CCE, Aurangabad vs. Klasspak Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 365 (Tri.  Mumbai), has held that when matter is under litigation, payment of duty made is deemed to be payment under protest, even though there is no express mention of payment having been made under protest. Thus in this case, the debit of the disputed amount on 4/1/05 in RG 23A Pt. II account has to be treated as having been made under protest.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1