Search Results for "duty paid under protest"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Di...
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Crim...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...

Search Results for "duty paid under protest"

212 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 212 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in MVAT Pre-Deposit Dispute — Protest Payment Can Be Adjusted Against Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeal. The Court held that under Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, amounts paid under protest before assessment can be adjusted against the 10% pre-deposit required for appeal, as the provision requires 10% of disputed tax, not arrears.

3 Dec 2021

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by VVF (India) Limited against the State of Maharashtra and others, setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Considers Whether Refund Claim Under Customs Act Requires Appeal Against Assessment Order. Self-Assessment Under Section 17 and Amendment to Section 27 by Finance Act 2011 Examined.

18 Sep 2019

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals filed by assessees and the Union of India against judgments of various High Courts and the Customs, Excise ...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Process Against Accused in Kidnapping Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Inordinate Delay. Complaint Filed After Six Years Without Explanation Fails to Make Out Offences Under Sections 341, 342, 364A, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC.

18 Dec 2021

The High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi considered a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by four petitioners seeking to quash the order o...

Supreme Court

Upholding Autonomy Amidst Settlement Disputes Exploring Legal Principles and Precedents in Arbitration Law

18 Jul 2024

This Judgment pertains to a legal discussion surrounding arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly focusing on the re...

Supreme Court

Recovery of Time-Barred Debts under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979: Resolving Legal Ambiguities and Clarifying Recovery Mechanisms Navigating the Intersection of Statutes of Limitation and Debt Recovery in India

8 May 2024

Recovery of Time-Barred Debts under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979: Appeals arising from judgments of the High Court of Punja...

1 2 3

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)