Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2009 (8) TMI 542

..... ning the annual production capacity. The refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority but allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur-II v. SPBL Ltd. Held that- we do not find substance in the contention on behalf of the Revenue, as far the merits of the case is concerned. However, the matter has to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority in view of the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) in his order did not consider whether the appellants have passed on the duty liability to their customers or not and whether the grant of refund would amount to unjust enrichment - E/3096/2004 - 755/2009-EX(PB), - 20-8-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... r the issue. While remanding the matter, the Hon ble High Court observed that the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that the assessee was discharging the demand of duty on stenter of galleries and had treated the said order of the Commissioner as interlocutory order subject to final decision on the verification of technical expert. Further, the Hon ble High Court has also observed that the appellant had filed fresh declaration and have claimed redetermination on the basis of amendment in the Rules and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chiman Lal Silk Mills (I) (P) v. CCE reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 766 (Tribunal) was also not taken into account. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submit .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... lable order. He also submitted that they had paid duty under protest shows the request for revised order. However, he also submitted that in terms of Section 3A, the Commissioner is empowered to re-determine the APC whether assessee claims actual production of notified goods in the factory lower than the production after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence in support of his claim. Therefore, it is their submission that once they had paid duty under protest and had replied to the show cause notice contesting fixation of APC itself, APC should have been redetermined. He also submits that relying upon the, decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Om Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (74) RLT 233 in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... determined whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Kanpur v. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. is applicable or not. In this connection, we note that the Hon ble High Court has observed that as soon as the law is declared by the Hon ble Supreme Court it gives immediately substantive right to the appellant to raise such issue before the appropriate forum for adjudication. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. A substantive right as accrued by the appellant is clarificatory in nature. Curative statutes are by their very nature are intended to operate upon and affect past transactions and are therefore, fully retrospective. Curat .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||