Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anant Syntex Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Anant Syntex Ltd. vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 24, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36339

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anant Syntex Ltd.

Respondent

C.C.E.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(99)ECC21

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, filed by m/s. anant syntex ltd., the issue involved is whether the bar of unjust enrichment will be applicable to the refund of the amount of duty paid under protest.2. we heard shri k.k. anand, learned advocate for the appellants and mrs. charul barnwal, learned sdr for the revenue. both, learned advocate and learned sdr, agree that the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled by the decision of the supreme court in the case of cce, mumbai-ii v. allied photographics india ltd., 2004 (166) elt 3 (sc). the supreme court in the said judgement did not find any merit in the arguments of the respondents that the payment of duty under protest and payment of duty under provisional assessment are both "on account" payments under the act. the supreme court has held that "duty paid under protest falls under sec. 11b of the act whereas duty paid under provisional assessment falls under rule 9b" of the rules;" that section 11b deals with claim for refund whereas rule 9b deals with making of refund, in which case the assessee has not to comply with section 11b.therefore, section 11b and rule 9b operate in different spheres.....hence, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents m/s. apil that although in this case duty was paid under protest, there was no difference between such payment and duty paid under provisional assessment under the said act." following the judgment of the apex court, we find no merit in the appeal, which is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Anant Syntex Ltd., the issue involved is whether the bar of unjust enrichment will be applicable to the refund of the amount of duty paid under protest.

2. We heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR for the Revenue. Both, learned Advocate and learned SDR, agree that the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC). The Supreme Court in the said judgement did not find any merit in the arguments of the respondents that the payment of duty under protest and payment of duty under provisional assessment are both "on account" payments under the Act. The Supreme Court has held that "duty paid under protest falls under Sec. 11B of the Act whereas duty paid under provisional assessment falls under Rule 9B" of the Rules;" that Section 11B deals with claim for refund whereas Rule 9B deals with making of refund, in which case the assessee has not to comply with Section 11B.Therefore, Section 11B and Rule 9B operate in different spheres.....Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents M/s. APIL that although in this case duty was paid under protest, there was no difference between such payment and duty paid under provisional assessment under the said Act." Following the judgment of the Apex Court, we find no merit in the appeal, which is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial