https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256035 Writ interference was sought against recovery notices for differential excise duty collected on royalty and stowing charges arising from coal sales under a spot e-auction scheme. The scheme required buyers to bear statutory levies and included an arbitration clause, while the status of royalty as a tax was already pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. As the coal companies had deposited the differential duty with the excise authorities and any refund entitlement would have to be determined under the statutory scheme, the High Court found no basis to injunct the recovery notices at that stage and declined interference, while directing trader-wise separate statements of recoveries. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256035 Writ interference was sought against recovery notices for differential excise duty collected on royalty and stowing charges arising from coal sales under a spot e-auction scheme. The scheme required buyers to bear statutory levies and included an arbitration clause, while the status of royalty as a tax was already pending before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. As the coal companies had deposited the differential duty with the excise authorities and any refund entitlement would have to be determined under the statutory scheme, the High Court found no basis to injunct the recovery notices at that stage and declined interference, while directing trader-wise separate statements of recoveries. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256035