Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.34 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 128 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
- 2004 (165) E.L.T. A77 (S.C.), Super Cassette Industries v.
Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (163) E.L.T. A116 and that the
Supreme Court decision in the case of Sales Tax Officer, Benaras & Ors.
v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf, (1959) SCR 1350, which was followed
in Shri Valabh Glass case was overruled by the Apex Court in the case of
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 217. Further
in Paragraph 70 of the Mafatlal decision, Supreme Court has observed
that where a duty has been collected under a particular order which has
become final, the refund of duty cannot be claimed unless the order
(whether it is a order of assessment, the adjudication or any other order
under which the duty is paid) is set aside according to law. We are not
convinced by the plea of the respondent that when an assessment is
made in accordance with the claim made by the assessee, such an
assessment cannot be challenged by him, as he cannot be said to be
aggrieved by the order of the assessment, as it is the job of the proper
officer to pass a correct assessment order irrespective of the claim made
by the assessee and the grievance is from the assessment order and not
from his claim especially when the Apex Court in the two decisions in
E/103,104,2181,689-692/2010,
E/275,687,688,458,459,559,587,588,1502-
31 1505/2011, E/62,63,64,1171-1173/2012
the case of Priya Blue and Flock India, has categorically held that a
refund is not maintainable unless and until the assessment order in
pursuance of which the duty was paid has not been challenged."