https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397887 The petitioner was initially granted an excise duty exemption under the Northeast Industrial Policy, 2007, and received refunds for education cess and higher education cess based on the SRD Nutrients judgment. However, following the Unicorn Industries decision, which clarified that exemptions must be explicitly stated, a demand cum show-cause notice was issued for recovery under section 11(A-1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, claiming the refunds were erroneous. The court stayed the operation of this notice, pending further orders, and required affidavits from the Excise Department and responses from the petitioners, deferring the recovery of the refunded cess until further consideration. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397887 The petitioner was initially granted an excise duty exemption under the Northeast Industrial Policy, 2007, and received refunds for education cess and higher education cess based on the SRD Nutrients judgment. However, following the Unicorn Industries decision, which clarified that exemptions must be explicitly stated, a demand cum show-cause notice was issued for recovery under section 11(A-1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, claiming the refunds were erroneous. The court stayed the operation of this notice, pending further orders, and required affidavits from the Excise Department and responses from the petitioners, deferring the recovery of the refunded cess until further consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397887