SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor  ||  SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title  ||  SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers  ||  Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO  ||  J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A  ||  Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required  ||  SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law    

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