Back
R. M. CHHAYA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Lukwah Tea Estate Shivsagar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Soumitra, Saikia, J.
Heard Ms. P. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, Central Excise Department, appearing for the respondents.
2. This an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata.
3. The following questions of law were raised in the appeal by the appellant/assessee.
(b) Whether the Ld. Respondent Authorities have committed judicial indiscipline, while continuing revenue litigation, without taking recourse of judicial appeal against the Order of this Hon'ble Court, dated 26.04.2013, if were aggrieved ?
(c) W
The limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act can be adjusted based on the time spent before an incorrect authority.
Claims for refund of excise duty under Section 11B must be filed within one year; reversal of CENVAT credit to obtain exemption does not constitute a mistake of law, thus refund claims beyond this li....
Duty of excise - Levy of - A bare reading of section 11A of Act (as amended), clearly shows that stipulation under this provision, can be exercised only if certain conditions precedent are present, a....
Refund claims under provisional assessments prior to the 1999 amendment to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Act do not require the test of unjust enrichment.
The court emphasized that delays in filing applications for excise duty refunds should be considered in light of extraordinary circumstances, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, and that entitlement to re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
