Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Creative Industries Pvt. Ltd., Creative Industries Vijayawada (P) Ltd., Creative Industries Ongole (P) Ltd., Creative Industries Anantpur (P) Ltd., Creative Industries Khammam (P) Ltd., Creative Industries Kurnool (P) Ltd., Creative Industries Karimnagar (P) Ltd., Creative Industries Tirupathi (P) Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Hyderabad

2017 (6) TMI 745 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Entitlement of interest - refund was denied on the ground that provisional assessment was still pending - Held that: - the claim for interest is the question of equity which cannot be decided by this Tribunal - This Tribunal, as already noted herein, cannot decide the issue of equity and therefore granting of interest based on equity at this stage is beyond the powers of this Tribunal - impugned order is correct and legal - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - C/30954/2016, C/30658/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in time and is listed for final disposal in today's cause list. 2. On perusal of the records, I do find that first appellate authority has disposed off 14 appeals by a combined order. As the appeal No. C/30954/2016 is filed in time, these appeals are treated as supplementary appeals and delay in filing the appeals is condoned and are taken up for disposal alongwith appeal No. C/30954/2016. 3. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS-000-APP-048 to 061-16-17, dt. 28.06.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or finalisation in the year 2005, which resulted demand for differential duty from appellant and the demand for differential duty was contested by appellants; in the hands of Tribunal the matter was decided in favour of appellants. During the interregnum period, revenue authorities in the year 1998 encashed all bank guarantees to the tune of ₹ 20.00 lakhs. Appellant during the year 2008 filled refund claim for returning the amount encashed by revenue in respect of bank guarantees, which wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uthority also did not agree with the contentions raised as to the claim of interest and rejected the same. Hence these appeals: 5. It is the claim of Ld. Counsel that revenue authorities have admitted that they have retained this amount of ₹ 20.00 lakhs from 1998. He would submit that once they are not entitled to retain the amount, they have to refund the amount alongwith interest. It is his further submission that interest is to be sanctioned to the appellant on equitable grounds as deci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 20.00 lakh encased by the revenue authorities in the year 1998 of bank guarantees issued. As has been stated by appellants on the facts of the case, the appellant claim for refund of amount encashed by revenue was rejected as pre-matured in the year 2008 by the authorities, against which no appeal was preferred. The appellants filed refund claim for the encashed bank guarantees in the year 2015 was sanctioned to them without interest, seems to be correct position of law as having not app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version