TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Rule 5 Refund Claims: Closed Companies Can Seek Tax Relief Despite No Manufacturing Activity Permitted</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NASIK Versus JAIN VANGUARD POLYBUTLENE LTD.</h3> The SC dismissed the SLP, affirming the Tribunal and HC's interpretation of Rule 5. The court held that Rule 5 does not mandate manufacturing activity and ... Judicial Discipline - HELD THAT:- Supreme Court in BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIPUR [2005 (7) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT], held that revenue cannot be allowed to take different view when question raised identical to previous case. High Court in present case cannot take different view from the Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], as approved by the Supreme Court. Appeal dismissed. Summary:The Bombay High Court, relying on the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., held that Rule 5 does not expressly prohibit refund claims where there is no manufacture due to factory closure. The Tribunal was justified in ordering a refund, especially given the closure and the assessee's exit from the Modvat Scheme. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against this judgment on its merits, clarifying that the dismissal was not due to any concession on the correctness of the Karnataka High Court's decision but because the Revenue had not appealed prior relevant judgments. Citing Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Court emphasized that the Revenue cannot adopt a contrary view on facts identical to previous cases upheld by the Apex Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
