Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of...
CESTAT ruled in favor of refunding interest under Section 72 of Finance Act, 2010 for retrospective amendment. Tribunal upheld interest on excess credit.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for refund of interest was not valid as the interest had already been paid in compliance with the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing a refund claim for the interest paid on reversed credit. Regarding excess credit, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of interest refund for Rs. 88,22,475/- but allowed interest on Rs. 1,00,10,808/- from three months after filing the refund claim. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of.
The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for refund of interest was not valid as the interest had already been paid in compliance with the retrospective amendment. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing a refund claim for the interest paid on reversed credit. Regarding excess credit, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of interest refund for Rs. 88,22,475/- but allowed interest on Rs. 1,00,10,808/- from three months after filing the refund claim. The impugned orders were modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
