The case involved the issue of pre-deposit during the pendency ...

CESTAT ruled on pre-deposit during appeal & interest on duty refund. Stay is exception, total duty payment is norm.

July 3, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

The case involved the issue of pre-deposit during the pendency of appeal, applicability of Section 11B and unjust enrichment, and eligibility for interest on refund of duty paid. The Appellate Tribunal held that total duty payment was the norm, with stay being an exception. Pre-deposit u/s 35F was confirmed, with deposited amounts considered as mandatory pre-deposit. The tribunal referred to legal precedents regarding pre-deposit under similar laws. The decision clarified the distinction between full and partial pre-deposit. The tribunal ruled that the amounts paid under protest qualified as pre-deposit and were not subject to Section 11B. Interest on delayed refunds was granted post-amendment.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case involved the issue of pre-deposit during the pendency ...

CESTAT ruled on pre-deposit during appeal & interest on duty refund. Stay is exception, total duty payment is norm.

July 3, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Stay of Refund - Refund claim under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – unable to utilize the credit on account of closure of their factory - grant of refund stayed - AT

CESTAT allowed refund of customs duty paid twice through customs broker for same import consignment. Appellant demonstrated through Bill of Entry, payment challans, and...

Adjustment of refund claim (rebate claim on export of goods) with demand stayed by the CESTAT

CESTAT denied interest claim on pre-deposit refund made u/s 35F of Central Excise Act. Pre-deposit from 2012 was refunded in 2018 post-favorable appeal outcome. While...

CESTAT allowed the appeal regarding refund of unutilized accumulated CENVAT credit. Department's rejection of refund claim citing ineligible input services under Rule...

The appellant sought refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid in cash u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3)...

CESTAT allowed appeal regarding refund of erroneously paid excise duty on imported SKO. Appellant substantiated claim through PLA records, TR-6 challans, invoices, and...

CENVAT Credit - input - fuel - the exception to sub-rule (1) which is contained in sub-rule (2) itself contains an exception, namely, inputs intended to be used as fuel....

Refund claim was rejected as time-barred, having been filed beyond the one-year limitation period stipulated u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had...

CESTAT ruled that in provisional assessment cases, adjustments of excess duty payments against shortfalls must be handled comprehensively. The tribunal determined that...

The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's refund claim for service tax paid on 60% of the value of services rendered under reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal held that...

Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of goods on payment of duty - even after payment of all duties, it had accumulated Cenvat credit because of high rate of duty in the...

The Appellant sought payment of its pre-CIRP dues from the Respondent in a manner different from the approved resolution plan, which provided for payment of pre-CIRP...

HC accepted petitioner's alternative proposal to pay additional 5% of outstanding tax demand for AY 2011-12, bringing total payment to 20% of assessed amount. This...

CESTAT dismissed appeal concerning refund claim of unutilized Cenvat Credit under s.142(3) of CGST Act, read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and s.11B of Central...

Quick Updates: