GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (6) TMI 745 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2017 (6) TMI 745 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - 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 ag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant has filed appeal No. C/30954/2016 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. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

equently, the bills of entry were taken up for 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 rev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t appellate authority. The First appellate authority 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellants 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 appealed against rejection/return of refund claim in 2008, appellant cannot claim interest under provisions of Customs Act, 1 .....

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