Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
M/S.Sanmar Matrix Matrix Metals Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Gst And Central ... on 8 April, 2026 cites

Metal Forgungs Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 August, 1987

10. Pursuant to the above order, the matter was listed for final hearing today. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no estoppel in a taxing statute and the principle of equitable estoppel which is the rule of equity cannot prevail against the law. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1985 (20) ELT 280 (Delhi), Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Meattles (P.) Ltd., reported in [1985] 156 ITR 569.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Meattles P. Ltd. on 6 January, 1984

10. Pursuant to the above order, the matter was listed for final hearing today. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no estoppel in a taxing statute and the principle of equitable estoppel which is the rule of equity cannot prevail against the law. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1985 (20) ELT 280 (Delhi), Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Meattles (P.) Ltd., reported in [1985] 156 ITR 569.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

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

8. In other case reported in MANU/SC/0875/2003 : (2004) 13 SCC 113: 2003 (157) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.) (Derm Snuff (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh) relied on by the Revenue, the Supreme Court has in para 5 dealt with the issue relating to actual dispute involved herein, but the same relates to cause of action. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to decide starting date of period of limitation, whether it is from the date on which identical third party's case or the assessee's own case was finally decided by the Tribunal. In the case cited above, the payment was made under protest and the assessee originally classified the products under sub-heading 2404.60. Whereas, the Revenue classified the products under sub-heading 2404.50. The CESTAT in the 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.368 of 2022 case of another assessee held the same product to be classifiable under the Heading 2404.60 and the same was accepted by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. On the basis of such decision, the appellant filed the application for refund of the duty paid under protest. In the meanwhile, the assessee's own case involving same issue came to be decided on 28.08.2003 in favour of the assessee on the basis of the identical finding that the assessee's product would be classifiable under sub-heading 2404.60 and not under 2404.50. When the question to be determined whether the cause of action for refund claim arises after disposal of the assessee's own case or after disposal of the third party- assessee's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 held mat the relevant date from which the period of limitation starts to run is from the date on which the assessee's own case finally decided by the Tribunal Le. on 28-8-2003. Nevertheless, it is held that the payment of duty was made under protest was within time and no limitation was applicable to the refund claim of such duty and refund was hence ordered and the same was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, the facts involved in 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.368 of 2022 both the cases decided by the Supreme Court, were identical and the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue relating to period of limitation, uniformly held that no limitation was applicable to the payment made under protest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier judgment clearly observed that the payment made, when the assessee has been challenging the earlier levy of duty, is deemed to be under protest and not otherwise. Hence, the combined appreciation of both the cases decided by the Supreme Court would lead to an irresistible inference that the payment made herein is also deemed to be under protest and no limitation is applicable and the claim is maintainable and is rightly decided by the CESTAT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

S. And H. Gears Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2004

24. It will also be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in S. and H. Gears Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2004 (167) ELT 538, where it was held that the very filing of an appeal against an assessment order amounts to payment of duty under protest. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Hutchisom Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2004 (165) ELT 175, wherein it was held that filing of an appeal itself amounts to protest and hence, the refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation when the dis allowance of the benefits of the notification was challenged by the assessee and such benefit was finally allowed by the tribunal.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1