Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Fourrts India Labouratories P Ltd vs Cce Chennai-I on 13 March, 2025 cites

Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Ors vs Meenakshi Ammal & Ors on 3 September, 2009

6. This is a case where the appellant initiated a refund claim based on Boards Circular. It was for the department to examine the claim from all angles, on fact and law, and issue a SCN if they choose to reject the claim. In doing so they were obliged to bring out all the objections that they had in sanctioning the claim, so that the noticee could effectively respond to the allegations being made at one go. Piecemeal issue of SCN or adjudication cannot be done. It is not the departments case that the second round of appeal was caused by the Lower Authority going beyond the remit of the First Appellate Authority's order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangai Vinayagar Temple Vs Meenakashi Ammal, (2009) 9 SCC 757, held that res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilised system of jurisprudence. This doctrine encapsulates the basic principles in all judicial systems which provide that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject-matter between the same parties. Instead of challenging the first order of the Commissioner Appeals revenue has chosen to file an appeal against 9 the sanction of refund claim made on the basis of the Commissioner Appeals order and also issue SCN's in all the cases, presumably as protective SCNs, which is legally incorrect. The first appellate order had become final and binding on the parties, and the respondent could not question it in any way.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - M Katju - Full Document

M/S Varun Beverages Limited vs Cce, Jaipur Ii on 15 January, 2016

She hence prayed that the appeals may be rejected. 3.3 In their rejoinder to the written submission of the Ld. AR dated 05.03.2025, the appellant has stated that the Department/ 6 Respondent has not raised the plea of monetary limit as a reason for not filing an appeal against the Order in Appeal, before this Hon'ble Tribunal during the hearing on 04.03.2024 or earlier. Moreover, the issue is no longer res integra in light of the decision in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs, GST, and Central Excise, Jaipur [2022 (2) TMI 731 - CESTAT New Delhi]. Further regarding unjust enrichment, the adjudicating authority while granting refund based on Order in Appeal No 08-11/2007 (M-II) dated 25.01.2007 had already examined this aspect and stated that the same would not apply as there was no sales. The said finding was not disturbed in the first appeal. The appellant relied on the following case laws in this regard:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1