https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155631 Refund of education cess and higher education cess paid with excise duty under Notification No. 20/2007-C.E. was held not admissible because that notification was pari materia to Notification No. 56/2002, under which a prior Division Bench had already denied such refund. Applying the binding earlier view, CESTAT Kolkata found no merit in the claim for refund of the cess amounts and rejected the appeals. The operative principle stated was that where a later exemption notification is pari materia to an earlier notification already interpreted to exclude refund of education cess and higher education cess, the same exclusion applies to claims under the later notification. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155631 Refund of education cess and higher education cess paid with excise duty under Notification No. 20/2007-C.E. was held not admissible because that notification was pari materia to Notification No. 56/2002, under which a prior Division Bench had already denied such refund. Applying the binding earlier view, CESTAT Kolkata found no merit in the claim for refund of the cess amounts and rejected the appeals. The operative principle stated was that where a later exemption notification is pari materia to an earlier notification already interpreted to exclude refund of education cess and higher education cess, the same exclusion applies to claims under the later notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155631