9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in [2005 (3) TMI 492 - SUPREME COURT], the question of refund will not arise and the appellant is not entitled for refund. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the Original Authority declining to grant refund. - Decided against assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.599, 2511, 2512, 2711 of 2007 and 2332 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2015 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R.KARUPPIAH, JJ. For the Apeellant : Mr. S. Muthuvenkataraman For the Respondent : Mr. T. Chandrasekaran Standing Counsel JUDGEMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the assessee as against the Final Orders of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L.H.Sugar Factory is not applicable to the present case of the appellant? C.M.A.No.2332 of 2009: (1) Whether the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants for refund of duty paid on service tax under protest? (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in discriminating between the appellants and other similarly placed assessees? (3) Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the fact that the demands are time barred and when the same was not covered by the tenet of the retrospective validation? 2. The brief facts are as follows: The appellant/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of sanitaryware Sugar, Molasses, Denatured spirit etc. They avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed in terms of the statutory provisions, it is deemed to be voluntary payment of tax, more so, in a case of self-assessment. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal the assessee is before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. The issue involved in these appeals has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch dated 31.10.2013). This Court after following several decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in the case of Gujarat Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to make the provisions of the Act and the Rules compatible, the criticism of the earlier law upheld by this Court can no longer be availed of. There is thus no question of the Finance Act, 2000 overruling the decision of this Court in Laghu Udhyog Bharati as the law itself has been changed. A legislature is competent to remove infirmities retrospectively and make any imposition of tax declared invalid, valid. This has been the uniform approach of this Court. Such exercise in validation must of course also be legislatively competent and legally sustainable. Those issues are considered separately. On the first question, we hold that the law must be taken as having always been as is now brought about by the Finance Act, 2000. The statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
