Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

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