Remanded

C.K. Mandal v. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Dn III and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2009WP/1526/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside two orders where refund claims were rejected. It directed the respondent officer to hear the petitioner and decide the refund applications within three months to comply with a previous order.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 28th September, 2004 setting aside refund claims of Rs.47,029/ and Rs.71,759/ were set aside. Respondents directed to give hearing and pass orders within three months.

C.K. Mandal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

mgn

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1526 OF 2009

¶4

C.K.P. Mandal..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Assistant Commissioner of
Service Tax & Ors...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Aarti Sathe with Mr. S.S. Phadkar i/b. Kranti Sathe,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.B. Pardeshi,
for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &

¶9

 D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER , 2009

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

2.The petitioners have approached this Court

¶13

contending that though this Court in Central Excise
Appeal No.76 of 2006 by order dated 25th April, 2006 in
Appeal preferred by the petitioners allowed the appeal
and set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated
3rd November, 2004 which had allowed the appeal preferred
by the Revenue and held that refund was not allowable.

¶14

No refund has been ordered so far. These refunds are
for the period 1997 to 2002.

¶15

3.On behalf of the respondents no reply has been
filed. Learned Counsel has placed on record a list of
dates. From the list of dates we find that after the
order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had held in
favour of the petitioners herein as there was no stay
granted by the learned Tribunal the concerned Officer
proceeded to consider the claim for refund and by order
dated 28th September, 2004 in so far as the refund claim
for Rs.47,029/- credited the same to the Consumer
Welfare Fund and in respect of the other claim in a sum
of Rs.71,759/- rejected the same as time barred. It
appears that when the appeal came up for hearing and was
being heard before this Court this fact was not brought
to the attention of this Court consequent to which the
order of 25th April, 2006 came to be passed allowing the
appeal by the petitioners herein for refund of the said
amount.

¶16

4. After hearing the parties, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met and more so to give compliance of the order dated 25^th April, 2006 by passing the following order:-

¶17

(i) The two orders dated 28^th September, 2004 in respect of refund of Rs.47,029/- and the other refund claim of

¶18

Rs.71,759/- are set aside.

¶19

(ii)The Respondents are directed to give hearing to the
petitioner and thereafter to pass orders on the
applications for refund in respect of the said two
amounts.

¶20

(iii)The entire exercise be completed within a
period of three months from today.

¶21

(iv)The petitioners to appear before the respondent
No.1 on 7thOctober, 2009. The respondent No.1
thereafter shall proceed according to law.

¶22

(v)Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to

¶23

costs.

¶24

(D.G. KARNIK,J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

C.K. Mandal v. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Dn III and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Mandal v. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Dn III and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish D. Sanghvi Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Satish D. Sanghvi Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S Malji Devashi and Co. Mohamed a. Majid Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajendra Bhutada Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Commissioner Central Excise Thane Vs M/S. Hi-Tech Fabrics Processors

Industrial Silrents and Chemicals P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Asstt. Collector and Customs and Ors.