https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399240 The HC stayed the operation of the demand cum show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, who contested the validity of the refund recovery under Section 11(A-1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner argued the refunds were lawful under the prevailing judgment at the time. The Court granted time for the GST Department to file an affidavit-in-opposition, allowing both parties to present their arguments. The final outcome hinges on the interpretation of the law and the applicability of conflicting judgments regarding exemptions from education cess and secondary and higher education cess in relation to excise duty exemptions. en-us Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399240 The HC stayed the operation of the demand cum show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, who contested the validity of the refund recovery under Section 11(A-1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner argued the refunds were lawful under the prevailing judgment at the time. The Court granted time for the GST Department to file an affidavit-in-opposition, allowing both parties to present their arguments. The final outcome hinges on the interpretation of the law and the applicability of conflicting judgments regarding exemptions from education cess and secondary and higher education cess in relation to excise duty exemptions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399240