Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1980 (2) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arieties of fabrics manufactured wholly of wool or which contain 40 per cent., or more by weight of wool and includes blankets, lohis, rug, shawls and embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs." 2. In pursuance of the orders levying the duty the respondent paid various amounts of duty. A summary of the treasury challans of duty paid by the respondent is at Annexure `A' annexed to the plaint in Suit No. 142 of 1973. It is found that payments of which serial numbers are 1 to 55 were made up to 12-1-1970. The payments of serial numbers 56 to 183 were made from 24-1-1970 to 20-4-1972. 3. Suit No. 142 of 1973 was filed by the petitioner on the 26th March, 1973 claiming a refund of all these amounts from the Excise Authorities on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of action and the limitation of three years has to be counted from the date of each payment for the suit for the recovery of that payment. Even though all these causes of action can be combined in this suit because they involve a common question of law and the suit is against the same respondent, this fact should not make us forget the basic nature of the cause of action on which each of the claim for refund rests. There are, therefore, as many causes of action as there were payments. This contention in our view is correct. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that what the plaintiff was concerned with was the basic question whether the article manufactured by the plaintiff was excisable or not. The plaintiff, therefore....