2010 (6) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annot be allowed to take different view when question raised identical to previous case. High Court in present case cannot take different view from the Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 -TMI - 606 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE), as approved by the Supreme Court. Appeal dismissed.
V.C. Daga and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri R. V. Desai, Sr. Counsel a/w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilar claims were allowed. The Tribunal, in our view, is fully justified in ordering refund particularly in the light of the closure of the factory and in the light of the assessee coming out of the Modvat Scheme. In these circumstances, we answer all the three questions as framed in para 17, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee." 3. The above judgment was subject matter of Special Le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned Additional Solicitor General had conceded the correctness of the High Court's judgment. What was conceded by the Learned Additional Solicitor General was that the various judgments relied upon by the Court were not appealed against and not the correctness of the judgment of Karnataka High Court. The Apex Court in Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X