w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts, K. Sivaguru, v/s The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27109DL1973GOI006454

Company & Directors' Information:- L & T FINANCE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65990MH1994PLC083147

Company & Directors' Information:- S P FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1979PTC021790

Company & Directors' Information:- V L S FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65910DL1986PLC023129

Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- L R N FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TN1992PLC089288

Company & Directors' Information:- S M FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = L65999TG1984PLC004526

Company & Directors' Information:- J R D FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = L65999WB1993PLC058107

Company & Directors' Information:- B R D FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910KL1995PLC009430

Company & Directors' Information:- T C I FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65920MH1973PLC017042

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- A. V. B. FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U65993DL1992PTC049818

Company & Directors' Information:- S M L FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910KL1996PLC010648

Company & Directors' Information:- S B FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921TG1988PTC008268

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA FINANCE LTD. [Active] CIN = L65110WB1984PLC050214

Company & Directors' Information:- J J FINANCE CORPORATION LTD [Active] CIN = L65921WB1982PLC035092

Company & Directors' Information:- G V S FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921TG1988PTC008269

Company & Directors' Information:- G T P FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1991PLC003149

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910UP1994PTC016038

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- R N FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PLC034289

Company & Directors' Information:- J R D FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = U65999WB1993PLC058107

Company & Directors' Information:- L N FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = U65923WB1991PLC052876

Company & Directors' Information:- R K FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = L65921WB1983PLC035896

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M FINANCE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140MP1995PTC009542

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- I & D FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1991PTC021369

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910GJ1994PLC023717

Company & Directors' Information:- L N FINANCE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65929AS1992PTC003766

Company & Directors' Information:- T P D FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120RJ1994PLC008051

Company & Directors' Information:- R G L FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015809

Company & Directors' Information:- S K B FINANCE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65999WB1996PLC082317

Company & Directors' Information:- J V FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC067873

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- L C J FINANCE PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U65921WB1995PTC068809

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- T T FINANCE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120DL1986PLC023168

Company & Directors' Information:- M M V R FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TZ1997PLC007705

Company & Directors' Information:- D B FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65191TN1989PTC016705

Company & Directors' Information:- C H P FINANCE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65921PB1992PTC012788

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- S L B P FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC041694

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- R S FINANCE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65191WB1988PTC044144

Company & Directors' Information:- I C FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921UP1989PTC011236

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- V K FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1991PTC052140

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND N FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921DL1998PTC094290

Company & Directors' Information:- C D R FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910TG1995PLC022237

Company & Directors' Information:- DELHI STEEL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL1956PLC002613

Company & Directors' Information:- J R FINANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921PB1996PLC017699

Company & Directors' Information:- I C S FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921TZ1987PLC001991

Company & Directors' Information:- D D S FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910DL1996PTC076165

Company & Directors' Information:- D A S FINANCE PVT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1993PTC012888

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- U B FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051300

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- V L G FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910AP1997PTC027952

Company & Directors' Information:- E M S FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921TZ1986PTC001789

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL UNION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51420WB1940PTC010133

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- S. F. FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1996PTC018702

Company & Directors' Information:- D S L FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921TG1996PTC023898

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K C FINANCE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65999TZ1989PLC002445

Company & Directors' Information:- H A FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993DL1987PTC027064

Company & Directors' Information:- V V A FINANCE LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1984PLC037171

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION GENERAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U10200WB1950PLC018697

Company & Directors' Information:- Y B FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921CH1996PTC017745

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1989PTC016789

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1987PTC014526

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL PLANT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210MH1959PTC011311

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- I FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67110DL2011PLC212268

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND Z FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190MH1995PTC093153

Company & Directors' Information:- Y AND K FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC019837

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- S L P FINANCE PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U65923DL1985PTC021970

Company & Directors' Information:- V M FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910PB1996PLC018339

Company & Directors' Information:- D S K FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910UP1988PLC010317

Company & Directors' Information:- G B V FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65110UP1988PTC010219

Company & Directors' Information:- B H FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65922KA1995PTC018390

Company & Directors' Information:- M .R .S . FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65929DL1995PLC067184

Company & Directors' Information:- H D FINANCE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL1986PLC023675

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- P R K FINANCE P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1995PTC033478

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND C FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120RJ1996PLC012576

Company & Directors' Information:- W S FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65192UP1996PTC020243

Company & Directors' Information:- S A C FINANCE COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65999WB1985PTC039002

Company & Directors' Information:- C C FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1997PTC037805

Company & Directors' Information:- S R B FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910UP1988PLC010045

Company & Directors' Information:- P V FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993DL1987PTC027270

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990KA1995PTC018436

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND B FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1986PTC038841

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27107MH1995PTC094592

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA FINANCE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U65999WB1991PLC051652

Company & Directors' Information:- A E FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999TZ1990PTC002905

Company & Directors' Information:- L R FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910UP1988PTC009758

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1994PLC014374

Company & Directors' Information:- T A S FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1990PTC018654

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND O FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC054788

Company & Directors' Information:- H R P FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1995PTC015715

Company & Directors' Information:- P T R FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1989PTC016795

Company & Directors' Information:- B & S FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191TN1988PTC015491

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- H S B FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120RJ1996PTC012119

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW K K FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921UP1974PTC003887

Company & Directors' Information:- M. J. S. FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1971PTC003049

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- A R FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921PB1989PTC009778

Company & Directors' Information:- K G FINANCE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910TZ1982PLC001219

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND Z FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923PN1997PTC106520

Company & Directors' Information:- H S N FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120PB1993PTC013900

Company & Directors' Information:- G N FINANCE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1981PTC024294

Company & Directors' Information:- C S FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910GJ1987PTC009799

Company & Directors' Information:- K SALEM LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1947PTC005530

    W.P. No. 14238 of 2005

    Decided On, 12 February 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMER

    For the Petitioner: P. Jaya lakshmi for R. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior standing counsel.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Final Order No.800/2004 in Appeal No.E/1383/1997 dated 22.09.2004 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, confirming the order in Appeal no.96/97 (CBE), dated 18.03.1997 on the file of the 4th respondent, confirming the Order in Original Sl.no:178/95 dated 7.8.1995 on the file of the 5th respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 5th respondent to grant the claim of refund of Rs.1,17,94,674/- paid on stainless steel coin blanks cleared by the petitioner during the period from 1.1.1994 to 17.05.1994.

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.

1. This case presents a very piquant situation. The Assessee, which is Government of India undertaking has filed this Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2004 made in Final Order No.800/2004 in Appeal No.E/1383/1997 of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal while upholding the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority upheld the rejection of refund of the Assessee for Excise duty on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (in short 'Act').

2. The facts giving rise to filing of Writ Petition are as under:

(i) The Assessee Company under the orders from the Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India was placed with an order to supply 5250 Metric Tons of Stainless Steel Coin Blanks for 1 Re, 50 paise and 25 paise denominations. A part of the quantity viz., 2600 Metric Tons was procured from abroad and supplied by SAIL while the remaining quantity was manufactured and supplied indigenously by the Assessee's factory at Salem. The Department of Economic Affairs, purchasers of these coin blanks requested the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) Government of India to exempt the Assessee from the payment of Excise duty in respect of entire quantity of such Stainless Steel Coin Blanks supplied by the Assessee Company. At the request of the Department of Economic Affairs, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E.C.) granted Ad-hoc exemption vide its Ad-hoc Exemption Order No.11/11/94 dated 21.09.1994 on the said entire quantity of 2640 M.T. of Stainless Steel Coin Blanks supplied to the Department of Economic Affairs. The said exemption notification was clarified later on by CBEC vide order dated 30.06.1995 stating that the ad-hoc exemption order is applicable to the entire quantity of 2640 M.T. of Stainless Coin Blanks supplied to the Government of India by the Assessee Company. In other words, all the clearances made by the Assessee through indigenous source i.e., 2640 M.T. was exempted from levy of payment of Excise duty.

(ii) However, since the Assessee started supplying the Coin Blanks from January 1994 itself, but the exemption notification was issued by CBEC only after nine months from 21.09.1994, the Excise duty was paid initially by the Assesssee on its own and which was not charged from the Department of Economic Affairs and later on in the month of November 1994, the Assesssee made a claim for refund of the entire Excise duty between 01.01.1994 to 12.10.1994. The Assesseing Authority however vide its order dated 7.08.1995 allowed only a part refund to the extent of Rs.84,70,749/- for the period from 18.05.1994 to 12.10.1994 but disallowed the remaining claim on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Act stating that the claim of refund was made beyond the period of six months limitation as envisaged under Section 11B of the Act. Subsequently, a Corrigendum to the order in original was issued on 14.09.95 stating that the refund amount is admitted only to the extent of Rs.51,49,421/- after adjusting the MODVAT Credit holding that the clearances of Coin Blanks is exempted from payment of Excise duty. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee took the matter further to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) who rejected the Appeal vide order dated 18.03.1997 and the Second Appeal filed before the learned Tribunal also came be dismissed by the Order dated 22.09.2004, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition filed by the Assessee Steel Authority of India.

2. The reasons given by the learned Tribunal for rejection of the said claim on the ground of limitation was after distinguishing the Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (2004) 169 ELT 3 (Cal.) The observations in paragraph 12 of the Impugned Order of Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference.

"12 .The appellants have relied on a recent decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Batta Shoe Co.(P) Ltd. (supra)Cotton fabrics, covered by the tariff item "friction cloth" was a raw material for the manufacture of shoes. Duty of excise was not leviable on it prior to 1.8.1960. A Notification dated 1.8.1960 issued by the department introduced levy on the item. Bata Shoe Co. started making payments of duty from the said date under protest. While so, they represented to Government of India, Ministry of Finance for exemption from payment of duty on the fabrics and ultimately, on 26.09.1963, the Central Board of Revenue informed them that no duty was payable on friction cloth. On the basis of the Board's letter dated 26.9.1963, the shoe company applied for refund of the duty paid on the fabric from 24.04.1962 to 17.6.1966. The original authority rejected the claim for refund of the duty paid for the period prior to 26.9.1963 and allowed refund for the subsequent period. The rejection of the refund claim for the period prior to 26.09.1963 was challenged by the company and, ultimately, the dispute reached the High Court. The question considered by the Court was whether the claim for the period prior to 26.9.1963 was barred by limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The High Court found that the Board's letter dated 26.9.1963 was in the nature of clarification of the prevailing law on the point and that the payment of duty by the assessee for the aforesaid period was not occasioned by their mistake or misconception. On the other hand, the Court held, the payment of duty was of a purely compulsive mode of recovery by the Revenue on the basis of misconception of the Revenue authorities, which was clarified by the Board in the aforesaid letter. On this basis, it was held that the limitation provisions of Rule 11 ibid had no application to refund claim. According to the present appellants, the ratio of the High Court's decision is in support of their plea that the limitation provisions of Section 11B are not applicable to the refund claim in question. The Revenue, through ID.SDR, has rebutted this argument by correctly distinguishing the instant case from the Bata Shoe Company case. We also do not find any parallel between the two cases. In the Batta Shoe Company's case, the payment of duty was under protest right from the beginning, whereas in the instant case the duty was not paid under protest. Again, in the Batta Shoe Company's case, the Board's letter was held to be a clarification of the prevailing law, whereas in the instant case the ad-hoc exemption order issued by the Central Government under Section 5A(2) of the Central Excise Act operated in an entirely different way. The exemption order granted exemption from payment of duty in respect of coin blanks, which were otherwise eligible to duty of excise under the Central Excise Tariff. Further, in the Bata Shoe Company's case, as observed by the High Court, the department authorities themselves had accepted the fact Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules was not applicable to the refund claim in that case. In the instant case, it has ever been the case of the Revenue that the appellants' claim for refund of duty paid during 1.1.94 to 17.05.94 is time-barred under Section 11B. The Revenue has never disengaged Section 11B. In the circumstances, the appellants get no aid from the High Court's judgment in the Bata Shoe Company case which ha been correctly distinguished by Ld.SDR. On the other hand, Ion Exchange (supra) relied on by the SDR firmly supports the Revenue's case. A claim for refund of customs duty, filed by the assessee on the basis of an ad-hoc exemption order, was the subject matter of that case. It was argued by the assessee that the cause of action for the claim refund had arisen only after the ad-hoc exemption order was issued and hence the time limit for the claim was to be computed from the date of issue of exemption order. The Tribunal found that there was no provision in the Customs Act for computing the time limit as suggested by the assessee and accordingly, rejection of the refund claim was upheld. There was a claim for a period prior to 28.9.96. For reasons which we have already noted, the above view taken by the Tribunal in Ion Exchange (supra) must be followed in this case. We also note that the above view was followed by the Tribunal in the case of K.Viswanathan (supra) also.

13. It was argued by Ld.Counsel that, if the ad-hoc exemption order of the Central Govt. covering the goods already cleared on payment of duty was not given effect to, the assessee would be put to hardships which was not intended by the Govt. This argument was opposed by Ld, SDR by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in J.K.Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. And Another Vs. Union of India and Others- 1987 (32) ELT 234 (SC). She has referred to paragraphs 30 & 33 of the apex Court's Judgment. In the cited case, certain amendments to Rule 9 & 49 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 were considered by the Court. These amendments had been made with retrospective effect, which could become a potential weapon for the Revenue to raise demands of duty for past period up to 28/02/1944. It was argued by the assessee that, if the department reopened the past assessments for raising such demands, it would be harsh for them. This apprehension was rejected by their Lordships who observed that any such demand would be subject to time-bar provisions of Section 11A of the Act. Ld.SDR has argued that, just as a retrospective demand of duty is subject to limitation under Section 11A, a refund claim based on retrospective exemption should be subject to time-bar under Section 11B. We appreciate this argument and observe that J.K.Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra) is yet another assertion, by the apex Court, of the rule of strict construction and application of limitation provisions.

14. We have made a mention of the Modvat credit issue raised in this case. This issue has already been settled by this Bench as per Final Order No.1701/01 dated 28.9.2001 in Appeal No./1896/97-Md. reported in 2002 (139) ELT 415 (Tri.-Chennai) [Steel Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore], whereby denial of Modvat credit to the extent of Rs.85,91,276/- to the appellants was affirmed and the demand raised in corrigendum issued by the authorities was set aside.

15. In the result, the rejection of refund claim for the period 1.1.94 to 17.5.94 as time-barred and the sanction of refund for the period 18.5.94 to 12.10.94 are upheld. Any recovery of duty by way of adjustment against the refund so sanctioned shall be in terms of Final Order No.1701/01 ibid. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is rejected. "

3. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee has preferred this Writ Petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.P.Jaya Lakshmi submitted that the very purpose of exemption granted in the instant case by the Central Government itself through Exemption Order dated 21.09.1994 followed with its clarification on 30.06.1995 was frustrated by the Adjudicating Authority by denying the refund for the period from 01.01.1994 to 17.05.1994 merely on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Act. She submitted that Section 11B of the Act makes an exception for the excise duty paid under protest and no limitation then applying. She has drawn the attention to Second Proviso to 11B which clearly stipulates that limitation shall not apply to the duty or interest that has been paid 'under protest'.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the ad-hoc or specific exemption is for whole of the quantity and the Assessee was not liable to pay any Excise duty on such clearances of 2640 M.Ts. made by the Assessee. The entire duty paid by the Assessee which was necessary for the clearances of the goods at that point of time on the said quantity deserves to be wholly refunded and the duty paid for the period prior to such Exemption Notification has to be refunded to the Assessee treating the same as paid 'under protest'. She urged that it should be treated only as a payment made 'under protest' and it has to be refunded by the Central Excise Department. By not doing so, the exemption granted to the Asseessee was negatived by the Adjudicating Authority and the Assessee Company being a Government of India Undertaking had to litigate against the Excise Department before this Court.

6. Per contra, Ms.Hema Murualikrishnan learned counsel for the Revenue Department submitted that the Assessing authority was bound by the provisions of law under the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. Unless the payment is made specifically under protest, the Proviso would not apply and the Assesssing authority was justified in refusing to the extent which is barred by limitation. She submitted that duty in question was paid by the Assessee at the time of clearance to the goods under the self assessment scheme which itself amounts to Assessment. Therefore, unless the Assessee could secure exemption from the authority viz., CBEC in not applying the limitation under Section 11B of the Act the action of the Assessing Authority cannot be faulted.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for both sides and perused the records.

8. The case arises in a peculiar circumstance inasmuch as the Assessee was granted exemption for specific quantity of Coin Blanks manufactured by it as per the order passed by the CBEC and to avoid cost of Manufacture of such Coin Blanks exceeding the value, the exemption under question was sought for by the Assesee with the customer viz., Department of Economic Affairs, which was finally granted only on 30.06.1995 after processing the claim for exemption. But to maintain time schedule for supply, the Assessee Company have not only imported major part of 5050 MTs of Coin Blanks but had to the start supply of the order right from January 1994, and since the law requires payment of duty at the time of clearance, therefore, the Assessee had no choice but to pay the Excise duty for the goods in question. But the fact that he did not charge the Excise duty from the Department of Economic Affairs is not disputed in the counter filed by the Respondent. The Duty was paid from the pocket of the Assessee which was sought to be refunded. The only plea raised by the Respondent is that the payment having not been made "under protest," the limitation prescribed under Section 11B would apply.

9. The Ad-hoc exemption was granted to the petitioner for specific quantity and for specific purpose. It was not a case for general exemption on the basis of which Assessee claimed the refund. The word 'Ad-hoc' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary and The Oxford English Dictionary as under:

Black's Law Dictionary

ad hoc - Formed for a particular purpose.

The Oxford English Dictionary

ad hoc - (a) For this purpose, to this end; for the particular purpose in hand or in view.

(b) attrib, or as adj. Devoted, appointed, etc., to or for some particular purpose.

(c) Hence (nonce-wds.): ad hoc v., to use ad hoc

measures or contrivances, to improvise; so adhoc(k)ing Vbl.sb,; ad hoc-ery, the use of such measures; ad'hocism (also as one word), the use of ad hoc measures, esp. as a deliberate means of avoiding long-term policy; ad-hoc-ness, the nature of, or devotion to, ad hoc principles or practice.

10. The exemption in the present case was granted to the specific Assessee, in the specific facts and for specific quantity of the Coin Blanks manufactured and supplied by the Assessee. This was done for the purpose of maintaining the value of Coin Blanks itself. The payment of excise duty at the time of clearance of goods in anticipation of exemption right from the day one was therefore with the ardent hope of real and effective exemption and the refund of duty paid by the Assessee under compulsion for clearance of the goods. Such a payment even though not labelled by the Assessee to have been paid 'under protest', could very well be treated as payment made by the Assessee 'under protest' only as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Act paving the way for the rightful refund of excise duty in consonance with Article 265 of Constitution of India which does not permit the State to collect the tax or duty without authority of law.

11. While on the one hand the fixed quantity exemption from whole of the duty granted on 21.09.1994 in this case was consciously granted by the Central Government knowing that supplies have already been made in January 1994 the same was successfully defeated partially by the Assessing Authority taking a narrow and pedantic view of the limitation in the matter. It was open to the Assesseing Authority to seek a clarification from his higher authorities, as to whether the payment by the Assessee with regard to the clearance of these goods in question could be treated as payment 'under protest' or not as the assessee itself is a Government of India Undertaking, but instead of doing that, taking a shortcut pro-revenue approach, the Adjudicating Authority thought it better to adopt a negative approach of denying the refund on that ground, pushing the Government of India Undertaking into the whirlpool of litigation, which resulted in severe loss of public time and money and time of the valuable time of the Courts.

12. The refund is for clearances of goods in question pertains to period from 1994 . Already 26 years have passed due to one mistake in the decision taken by the Assessing Authority. The intention of Ad-hoc exemption itself was a glaring fact available before the Assessing Authority. Particularly the clarification issued on 30.06.1995 makes it clear that exemption was applicable for the entire quantity of goods supplied but ignoring this fact, the Asseesing Authority passed an order denying the refund partially, invoking the technical plea of limitation ignoring the exemption under the Second Proviso of Section 11B of the Act, whereby no limitation would apply when payment of Duty is treated as payment made 'under protest'

11. It is this kind of negative attitude of the Revenue Authorities which results in the legal battle between the Government of India Public Sector Undertakings and the Revenue Departments. On the other hand, it causes anguish to this Court and is deprecable, to say the least. We are also also little bit surprised by the reasons assigned by the CESTAT in distinguishing the clear Judgment of Kolkatta High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd (supra). In that case, where the Cotton fabrics, covered by the tariff item "friction cloth" was a raw material for the manufacture of shoes under the Notification dated 1.8.1960 issued by the Department, the Government imposed the levy on the said item. Bata Shoe Co. started making payments of duty from the said date 'under protest'. While doing so, they represented to Government of India, Ministry of Finance for exemption from payment of duty on the fabrics and ultimately, on 26.09.1963, the Central Board of Revenue informed them that no duty was payable on 'friction cloth'. On the basis of the Board's letter dated 26.9.1963, the shoe company applied for refund of the duty paid on the fabric from 24.04.1962 to 17.6.1966. The original authority rejected the claim for refund of t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he duty paid for the period prior to 26.9.1963 and allowed refund for the subsequent period. The rejection of the refund claim for the period prior to 26.09.1963 was challenged by the company. The Calcutta High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Assessee therein by holding that Board's letter dated 26.09.1963 was in the nature of clarification of the prevailing law on the point and that the payment of duty by the assessee for the aforesaid period was not occasioned by their mistake or misconception. On the other hand, the Court held that the payment of duty was of a purely compulsive mode of recovery by the Revenue on the basis of misconception of the Revenue authorities, which was clarified by the Board in the aforesaid letter and therefore the Assessee was entitled for refund. 12. The said Judgment in our understanding, was on all fours with the facts of the present case. But the learned Tribunal preferred to follow only Tribunal's earlier view in the case of Ion Exchange (supra) instead of a High Court decision. The learned Tribunal, the highest Appellate forum under the Act chose to lean in favour of the Revenue just for the sake of it. The very hope of Assessee to get a fair justice apart from the typical pro-revenue approach of the Revenue Authorities was also belied by the learned Tribunal in the present case, totally ignoring the total ad-hoc exemption for the specific quantity including the purpose thereof and the payment thereof could be very well treated as payment made 'under protest' by the Assessee. The approach taken by the learned Tribunal was least expected. We need not say anything more on this. 13. We are therefore of the clear opinion that the present Writ Petition filed by Assessee Steel Authority of India Ltd., deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal, as well as that of the authorities below Tribunal denying the refund to the Assessee. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 22.09.2004, passed by the Tribunal and those of Authorities below also are set aside. We direct the Assessing Authority to refund the entire eligible amount with interest according to law. 14. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-10-2020 M/s. VA Innova Alloy Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Avinash Daga High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-10-2020 Mahasemam Trust, A Public Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Dr. Prabu Vairavan Prakasam Versus Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 C.J. Manoj & Others Versus Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Thrissur, Represented by Its P/A Holder, Vineeth Ramaraghavan High Court of Kerala
01-10-2020 P. Kandasamy & Others Versus Manikandan Finance Represented by Its Managing Partner A. Chellapathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 Union of India The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati Versus On The Death of Baneswar Das His Legal Heir Manju Das & Others High Court of Gauhati
22-09-2020 P.S. Dilip Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-09-2020 Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, Represented by its General Secretary, K.A.M. Muhammed Abubacker, Chennai Versus M.G. Dawood Miakhan & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-09-2020 M/s. A.G. Neuro Hospitals (P) Ltd., through its Managing Director Dr. P. Sundararajan Salem Versus The Inspector General of Registration & Chief Controller of Revenue Authority, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-09-2020 SREI Equipment Finance Limited Versus Rajeev Anand & Others Supreme Court of India
04-09-2020 Kaliyappan Versus State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 All India Union Bank Officer, Staff Association Rep. by its General Secretary, AIBOA, Chennai Versus Brajeshwar Sharma, The Chief General Manager(HR) Union Bank of India, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Jayantkumar Kalubhai Sagar Versus Shriram Housing Finance Ltd. & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-08-2020 K. Kalaimani Versus State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Salem Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-08-2020 Tripunithura Meghala Head Load & General Workers, Swatantra Thozhilali Union, Represented by Its Secretary, E.G. Soman Versus Communist Party of India, Represented by Its District Secretary, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 S. Chinna Gounder, Member, Sree Sastha Nagar Manai Nila, Sondakkaragal Sangam, Versus S. Bala Sundaram, Secretary, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 George Alexander Muthoot, Managing Director, Muthoot Finance Ltd., Muthoot Chambers, Ernakulam Versus M/s Marikar Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-08-2020 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Regional Office, Dharmapuri Versus K. Mahendiran High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-08-2020 Secretary to Govt. Department of Finance Versus M/s. K.S. Arcanut Stores High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
04-08-2020 M/s. Pioneer Power Ltd, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Therkukattur Village, Ramanathapuram Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 S. Palanivel Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 N. Madhavan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 Kapil Dev Chaturvedi Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-07-2020 Balwinder Singh Versus Mithoot Finance (P) Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 M/s. Maa Sarala Multipurpose Cooperative Limited Versus Steel Authority of India & Another High Court of Orissa
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 M/s. P.R. Mani Electronics Rep. by its Proprietor, Thiruvannamalai Versus Union of India Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 Royal Enfield Employees Union, Rep. by its General Secretary, Chennai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary Labour & Employment Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 G. Gopal Versus The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Salem Range, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 Ravindra Versus Union of India, through its Under Secretary, General Administration Department, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-07-2020 The Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Another Versus B. Sundaramoorthy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sree Gokula Chit & Finance Co (Pvt.) Ltd Versus Sunil Sabu High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Mumbai Versus Vinod Kumar Agrrawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
10-06-2020 K. Premanandan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Under Secretary, Accounts, Department of Finance, Secretariat of Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-06-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Versus Steel Authority of India, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-06-2020 K. Balasubramaniam & Others Versus Sri Vinayagar Finance, Namakkal (A registered Partnership firm by its Managing Partner N.K. Natarajan) High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 A. Sudershan Versus M/s. Gowra Leasing & Finance High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-06-2020 K. Balasubramaniam & Others Versus Sri Vinayagar Finance, Namakkal High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 The Salem District Lorry Owners Association rep.by its President V. Chennakesavan Versus The Inspector of Factories, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Hitesh Bhardwaj Versus Ministry of Finance, Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Vasu Versus M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
27-05-2020 Jeetha Agnes Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
26-05-2020 M/s. Mulberry Silks Limited (formerly M/s. Shakashambana Silks Exports (P) Ltd.), 'Mulberry House', Rep.by its Director R.K. Bothra Versus Settlement Commission (IT & WT), Additional Bench, Ministry of Finance, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
20-05-2020 A. Sennimalai Versus Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited, Rep. by its Director (Finance) & Secretary, V. Pichai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle I (1) High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Limited, Rep. by its Director (Finance) & Secretary, V. Pichai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle I (1) High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Tvl.M.R. Motor Company, Represented by its Managing Partner, N. Rajagopal Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), (FAC), Salem Town (South) Circle, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2020 K. Umadevi Versus The Superintendent of Police, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Kenneth Jideofor Versus Union of India, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India Ministry of Finance & Revenue & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-05-2020 Ratan Ch. Banik Versus The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, West Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
29-04-2020 M/s. PPS Enviro Power Private Limited (PPSE) Versus M/s. Pantime Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
21-04-2020 State Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking Rep by its DGM and Branch Head Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary Services Tax Wing, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-04-2020 Union of India, through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Another Versus Ganeshibai @ Sunderibai In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-04-2020 India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Versus Securities Exchange Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Nelco Limited Versus The Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-03-2020 M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Versus Jaysingh Damodar Patil National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 S. Stella Marry Versus Union of India, Rep, by Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
18-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Bikram Kumar Jaiswal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-03-2020 Surajit Das Versus The Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-03-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Versus M.K. Ali Kunju, Tax Assistant, O/O The Director General Income Tax (Investigation), Elamkulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 R. Saroja Versus The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Finance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 V.K. Anusree Versus Union of India, Represented by Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 R. Saroja Versus The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Finance Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 V. Raveendran Versus Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Kodambakkom, Chennai & Another High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 The Substitute Assistant Teacher's Association, New Salem Tamenglong Versus State of Manipur High Court of Manipur
16-03-2020 K.P. Sugandh Ltd. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Finance, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-03-2020 Ramu Kalanjiam Venkataraman, Director, M/s. Lakshmi Petro Pvt Ltd., Chennai Versus M/s. Paceman Finance India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Elumalai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Gyanendra Singh & Others Versus State Of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Finance & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
12-03-2020 Rekhanlal Shrivastava Versus Union of India General Manager West Central Railway JBP High Court of Madhya Pradesh
11-03-2020 Arjunan Versus State rep.by Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Omalur Sub Division), Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 M/s. Jaya Sakthi Leathers (P) Ltd., a Company constituted under Companies Act, Rep. by its Managing Director, M.P. Adimoolam Versus The Finance Secretary, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 Periyammal & Others Union of India owning Southern Railway rep. by its General Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Citi-financial Retail Services India Ltd., Rep. by its Assistant Manager-Collections J. Srikumar Versus Dove Finance Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai & Another Versus Rane Brake Linings Limited, Rep. by its Vice President Finance & Secretary V. Krishnan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 S.K. Sampathkumar Versus Indo Asain Finance Ltd, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Sudha Gupta V/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Virbhan & Others Versus Union of India, through the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 K.M. Suresh Babu Versus M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Ranjana & Others Versus Union of India, through its General Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 The Director, Shriram Transport Finance Co., Chennai Versus Kulandhai Theres & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 Kaliappan Versus The District Collector, Collectorate, Salem-1 & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Palanivel @ Prakash Versus State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras