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.

Jind Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce

Jind Textiles Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 19, 2005
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40284

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

Jind Textiles Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.2. in these cases, the refund claims filed by the appellants, in pursuance to the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of laghu udyog bharti and ors. v. uoi reported in 1999 (84) ecr 53 (sc), were rejected in view retrospective amendment of the law.3. the retrospective amendment was also challenged in the hon'ble supreme court and the hon'ble supreme court in the case of gujarat aambuja cements ltd. and anr. v. uoi reported in 2005 (120) ecr 377 (sc) upheld the constitutional validity of provisions to sections 116 & 117 of the finance act 2000. in view of the above decision of the hon'ble supreme court, whereby the constitutional validity of the provisions was upheld, the service tax paid by the present appellants will be deemed to have been paid under the valid provisions. therefore, request for refund of amount is not sustainable. in these circumstances, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeals are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.

2. In these cases, the refund claims filed by the appellants, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti and Ors. v. UOI reported in 1999 (84) ECR 53 (SC), were rejected in view retrospective amendment of the law.

3. The retrospective amendment was also challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Aambuja Cements Ltd. and Anr. v. UOI reported in 2005 (120) ECR 377 (SC) upheld the constitutional validity of provisions to Sections 116 & 117 of the Finance Act 2000. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the constitutional validity of the provisions was upheld, the service tax paid by the present appellants will be deemed to have been paid under the valid provisions. Therefore, request for refund of amount is not sustainable. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial