Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (10) TMI 2636 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess under Notification No. 56/2002.

The judgment delivered by Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, involved a case where the appellant failed to appear, requesting adjournment multiple times citing the pending issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned AR argued that the matter had already been settled in the appellant's own case for an earlier period. The AR contended that the issue was no longer res integra and requested the appeal to be dismissed. The Tribunal, after hearing the AR and considering the settled issue in the appellant's previous case, rejected the request for adjournment and proceeded with the case.

Upon reviewing the record, it was found that the core issue was whether the appellant could claim a refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess under Notification No. 56/2002. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, M/s. Jindal Drugs Ltd., where it was established that these cesses were not exempted under the said notification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant could not claim a refund based on the precedent set in the case of Jindal Drugs and the appellant's own previous case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order and denying the appellant's entitlement to claim a refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of precedent decisions in determining the entitlement to refunds under specific notifications. The appellant's repeated requests for adjournment were rejected due to the settled nature of the issue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on established legal principles and previous tribunal rulings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates