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.

Devasthan Vibhag Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Devasthan Vibhag vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 30, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46564

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devasthan Vibhag

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)10STR415

Excerpt

1. the appellants filed this appeal against rejection of refund claim of rs. 2,81,370/-. ld. advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax. the only dispute is that the adjudicating authority is within the jurisdiction of jaipur-i commissionerate. the appellant deposited the tax within the jurisdiction of jaipur-ii. ld. counsel drew the attention of the bench to the letter dated 9-1-2007 of the addl. accounts officer, jaipur commissionerate-i addressed to the asstt. commissioner, devasthan dept. bikaner.2. ld. dr reiterates the findings of the commissioner (appeals). he submits that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund claim as the deposit was made within the jurisdiction of the other adjudicating authority.3. after hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, i find that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax. in any event, the appellant deposited the tax, which is not within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, cannot be the reason for denial of the refund claim. it is seen that the chief accounts officer of central excise commissionerate, jaipur-i by his letter dated 9-1-2007 observed that the refund is payable to the appellant and the concerned asstt. commissioner, if requires any clarification, he can write to his office. hence, i set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after taking into consideration the letter of the chief accounts officer, as stated above. thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants filed this appeal against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 2,81,370/-. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax. The only dispute is that the adjudicating authority is within the jurisdiction of Jaipur-I Commissionerate. The appellant deposited the tax within the jurisdiction of Jaipur-II. Ld. Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the letter dated 9-1-2007 of the Addl. Accounts Officer, Jaipur Commissionerate-I addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan Dept. Bikaner.

2. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund claim as the deposit was made within the jurisdiction of the other adjudicating authority.

3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax. In any event, the appellant deposited the tax, which is not within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, cannot be the reason for denial of the refund claim. It is seen that the Chief Accounts Officer of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I by his letter dated 9-1-2007 observed that the refund is payable to the appellant and the concerned Asstt. Commissioner, if requires any clarification, he can write to his office. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after taking into consideration the letter of the Chief Accounts Officer, as stated above. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial