TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules in favor of company in Central Excise refund case</h1> <h3>NELCO LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered company, in a dispute with Central Excise authorities over the refund of a pre-deposit ... Refund of pre-deposit Issues involved: Dispute over refund of pre-deposit amount under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Judgment Summary:1. The petitioner, a registered company, had a dispute with Central Excise authorities regarding the value of certain goods. The matter was resolved by the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner, who sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount of Rupees Twenty lakhs made under Section 35-F of the Act.2. The Department contended that the case fell under Section 11-B of the Act, but the Court disagreed, stating that the amount deposited under Section 35-F was a security deposit and not duty itself. As there were no specific statutory provisions governing the issue, the matter was to be decided based on basic principles.3. The Court held that the amount should have been returned to the petitioner when the appeal was disposed of, as the deposit under Section 35-F is to be adjusted towards duty if the appeal fails, or returned if the appeal succeeds. The Department's actions were deemed unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to interest on the withheld amount.4. The Department's argument that the petitioner remained liable for duty was rejected, as the matter was remanded for re-adjudication, and there was no provision requiring a deposit at that stage. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum on the amount from January 24, 1997, to September 15, 2000.5. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to pay the specified interest amount. The rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs, and parties were instructed to act on an authenticated copy of the order. The issuance of a certified copy was expedited.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
