Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 September, 2003
8. In other case reported in (2004) 13 SCC 113 = 2003 (157)
E.L.T. 500 (S.C.) [Dena 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 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 28-8-2003 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 that 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 i.e. on 28-8-2003.
Nevertheless, it is held that the payment of duty was made
10
Excise Appeal No.70249 of 2020
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.
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ms Fives India Engineering And Projects ... vs Commissioner Of Gst&Amp;Cce(Chennai ... on 13 August, 2019
1999, accepted the claim of the assessee that in view of the
observation of the CEGAT in the decision reported in 1988 (33)
E.L.T. 591 (T), M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. v. CCE,
Calcutta, duty paid during the pendency of appeal proceedings
8
Excise Appeal No.70249 of 2020
should be treated as "paid under protest" and the refund claim
made for the subsequent period should be treated as in
continuation of the earlier claim and hence the time-limit as per
Section 11B was not attracted. The First Appellate Authority
allowed the appeal by directing the lower authority to grant
refund of duty, after verifying all other aspects. Aggrieved by
this, the Revenue went on appeal before the Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Applying the decision of the
Apex Court reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247, the Tribunal
rejected the Revenue's appeal. Hence, the present appeal
before this Court by the Revenue.
V. Sankaran vs Commissioner Of Customs, Tuticorin on 11 February, 2008
In similar circumstances, while dealing with the matter
relating to the petitioner, this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 2140 of
2018, dated 22-3-2018, has observed that the Adjudicating
Authority himself had mentioned that the case of the petitioner
is similar to that of V.V. Minerals v. Commissioner of Customs,
Tuticorin. The appeal filed by him against that case, is yet to
reach finality and there is no stay against the judgment of the
Tribunal. Further, the goods covered under shipping bills of the
petitioner were rightly classifiable under CH 2614 00 20 of CTH.
The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
1