Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (4) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2017 (4) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Interest on delayed refund - whether the appellant is entitle for the interest on the refund of duty @ 12% on the delay sanction of refund in respect of pre-deposit of ₹ 1 crore consequent to setting aside the order appealed and remand of the matter to the Commissioner for re-computation of the demand? - Held that: - demand was not finally decided by this tribunal - The demand was very much existing at the time of passing Tribunal order for the reas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llants Shri. Ajay Kumar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Order The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitle for the interest on the refund of duty @ 12% on the delay sanction of refund in respect of pre-deposit of ₹ 1 crore consequent to setting aside the order appealed and remand of the matter to the Commissioner for re-computation of the demand. 2. Shri. Vipin Jain, Ld. Counsel with Shri. Vishal Agarwal, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hree months from the date of Tribunal order dated 5-3-2004. However, refund of pre-deposit was sanctioned vide Dy. Commissioner's order dated 1-9-2005 i.e. almost after 545 days after three months period, therefore appellant is entitle for the interest for the said delay in sanction of refund of pre-deposit. He submits that pre-deposit is only for the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the moment the appeal is disposed of the amount pre-deposited stands refundable therefore for any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the other hand, Shri. Ajay Kumar, Ld. Joint Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that in the fact of the present case, the appellant's appeal was not finally allowed by this Tribunal whereas the matter was sent to the Adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand therefore matter was not attained finality. Accordingly refund did not arise immediately after Tribunal's order therefore there is no delay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version