TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 upholds department's decision on refund adjustment without separate notice requirement</h1> <h3>NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (I) (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SALEM</h3> NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (I) (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SALEM - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 767 (Tri. - Chennal), 2011 (21) S.T.R. 481 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Adjustment of refund amount towards interest without show cause notice.Analysis:1. The appellant contended that an amount was adjusted from the refund due to them without a show cause notice. The appellant had voluntarily paid a sum under protest at the request of the departmental authorities. The department recovered a portion of this amount towards interest due to a delay in payment. The appellant argued that since the initial payment was made under protest, the department should not have adjusted the refund towards interest without proper justification.2. The JCDR for the respondent argued that interest was payable on the principal amount paid by the appellants, even though it was done without a show cause notice and with a delay. It was highlighted that as per the prevailing law, no separate show cause notice is necessary for the recovery of interest or adjustment of amounts due from the assessee. The JCDR referenced a previous Tribunal decision to support this position, stating that the impugned order was in line with established legal principles.3. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's arguments, emphasizing that no separate show cause notice is mandated for the recovery of interest or adjustment of amounts due from an assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order, which followed established legal precedents, did not warrant any interference. However, the Tribunal clarified that the appellants retained the right to pursue the matter concerning the original amount paid under protest through appropriate legal channels.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal while providing the above observations, indicating that the decision was made after due consideration of the arguments presented by both parties. The order was dictated and pronounced in an open court setting, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal procedures.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
