In the case of The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. it was held that invoking Section 11A is not mandatory for recovering the wrong refund granted.
In the case of The CC&CE V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd., Kurnool, it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that invoking Section 11A is mandatory for recovering the refund granted pursuant to the adjudication order passed under section 11B which subsequently declared as unsustainable
M/s. ITC Limited Vs. CESTAT, Bangalore (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Larger Bench of Supreme Court had categorically held that any duty paid under mistake of law can be recovered only by resort to the provisions of Section 11B of the Act.
In the present case it appears that the Commissioner has assumed that in respect of all the clearances, the appellant has collected Excise Duty. If the department makes the allegation that the appellant had collected money representing Excise Duty
Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise Vs M/S Grip Engineers Pvt Ltd. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- In this Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 22.04.2003 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of clearance of excisable goods invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act
In the case of CCE&C vs. M/s Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that the subject processes viz., printing, slitting and winding Cork Tipping Paper does not amount to manufacture and no subject processes undertaken by the assessee was bringing
CCEC v. Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- Mere cutting of jumbo rolls of paper into smaller sizes and printing thereon by job-worker resulting into ‘printed cork tipping paper’ does amount to ‘manufacture’ for purpose of charging excise duty.
CCCE&S Vs. M/s TPSC (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh HC)- Contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that the Tribunal ought not to have granted absolute waiver and also stay of recovery without imposing any condition, does not merit any consideration in the facts of the case.
The Tribunal had also, considering the fact that when there was a scope for doubt whether the goods were dutiable or not, refused to apply extended period of limitation. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Camphor Drugs and Laminates
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. (High Court), At the outset, it may be noted that consequent to the Constitutional amendment, levy of Sales Tax on the Works Contract came to be introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 01.07.1985.
