TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside interest demand beyond refund claim scope, clarifies appeal focus, partially allows appeal.</h1> The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was beyond the scope of the appellant's refund claim. The ... While rejecting the refund claim the Commissioner (Appeals) has also demanded interest on the delayed payment of duty, which was never a matter before the lower authority as it was the appellants refund claim which was to be considered where there was no issue of interest – Commissioner has travelled beyond scope of SCN in demanding interest, so such demand of interest is set aside Issues:1. Refund claim exceeding duty paid for one year.2. Liability to pay interest imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:1. The appellant had cleared goods to their sister unit at a value determined by adding a profit margin. Upon realizing they paid duty beyond one year, they claimed a refund of the excess amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim and demanded interest on delayed payment, which was not part of the original issue. The appellant limited the appeal to contest the interest imposition, stating the interest was demanded under a different provision than the one previously adjudicated. The Tribunal noted that the subject matter was the refund claim, not interest, which had already been decided separately by the Jt. Commissioner. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for interest, partly allowing the appeal as the rejection of the refund claim was not contested.2. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overstepped the issue by demanding interest on delayed payment, which was not within the scope of the appellant's refund claim. By confirming interest under a different provision than previously adjudicated, the Commissioner (Appeals) acted on an extraneous issue. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal solely concerned the refund claim, not the demand for interest by the Revenue. As the interest issue had already been decided separately and no appeal was filed against it, the Tribunal set aside the demand for interest, emphasizing that the subject matter was the appellant's refund claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
