9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prasad, Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. P. K. Manohar, Adv. ORDER Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 5819 of 2007. These two appeals are filed challenging the judgments of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the excise duty and penalty which was paid by the respondents herein have been quashed. The proceedings arise out of Show Cause Notices i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Act, 1944, and therefore, no excise duty was payable. That dispute landed up in this Court and was finally decided in the case of 'Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Associated Stone Industries & Anr. [JT 2000 (6) SC 522] holding that it did not amount to manufacture activity. After this judgment was rendered, the assessees filed writ petitions seeking refund of the amount which they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are concerned, the duty was paid by them after proper adjudication and a particular view was taken which was upheld by the Tribunal as well. As mentioned above, no further appeals were brought by the respondents and, therefore, such proceedings had attained finality. The order of refund of this amount, merely because this Court took different view thereafter in some other case, would not permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
