Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Panacea Biotec Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (06 Dec 2023)

No demand of duty amount can be confirmed without issuing show cause notice and following the procedure prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act

MANU/CJ/0137/2023

Excise

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deciding two appeals of the Appellant whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal against the demand of interest and imposition of penalty upon the appellant but upheld the Assistant Commissioner order rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 19,55,010.

It is a settled law that, no demand of duty amount can be confirmed without issuing show cause notice and following the procedure prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1942. The main issue involved in this case is demand of differential duty of Rs. 19,55,010 for the period March, 2012 to May, 2013 without issuing show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant which is in violation of the statutory provision and the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in various decisions held that show cause notice is a condition to demand any tax.

In the present case also, no show cause notice as required in law was issued to the Appellant and no opportunity of hearing as required under law was accorded. The rejection of refund claim of Rs. 19,55,010 deposited by the appellant under protest is liable to be refunded to the appellant as prescribed by the law. Accordingly, the Revenue is directed to refund the said amount along with interest as prescribed by law. Appeal allowed.

Tags : REFUND CLAIM   REJECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved