REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Meghdoot Gram Udyog Appellant

V/S

Commissioner Central Excise, Lucknow Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

AURO LAB V. C.C.E. MADURAI [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA V. PANIHATI RUBBER LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ARJAN DASS RAM LAL V. JAGAN NATH SARDARI LAL [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
U J S CHOPRA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM NARESH PANDEY:RAM NARESH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VITHAL RAO PRITIRAO CHAWAN [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL SINGH VS. NARESH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BATTAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DHANIRAM LUHAR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI II VS. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI II VS. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
MEGHDOOT GRAMODYOG SEWA SANSTHAN U P VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA VS. PANIHATI RUBBER LTD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sheelendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "Act, 1944") against the order dated 10.12.2009, passed by the Custom Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short "Tribunal").

(3.) Facts, in brief, of the present case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, are to the effect that a show-cause notice dated 18.01.2006 was issued by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Lucknow to the appellant, mentioning therein as to why the refund application claiming Rs. 5,51,739/- should not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment and amount otherwise liable for refund should not to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. After receiving the same, the appellant submitted his defence reply to the show-cause notice on 04.04.2006 alongwith proof, inter alia, stating therein that the appellant has not passed on the duty to the buyers, as such is entitled to refund.

Click here to view full judgment.

MEGHDOOT GRAM UDYOG Vs. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address