Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying eligible interest on the refunded amount. The court held that interest accrued on the deposited amount is the property of the owner, and they cannot be deprived of it. Relying on judicial precedents, the court ruled that once confiscation is set aside, the department cannot deny interest merely due to lack of statutory provision. The Bombay High Court held that seized cash must be refunded with interest. The Kerala High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision, held that the interest rate for refunds should be 12%. Although Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were inapplicable, the court determined that the appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment until disbursement. However, considering a recent notification fixing the interest rate at 6%, the court allowed the appeal, entitling the appellants to interest at 6% on the refunded amount from the date of payment till disbursement.
The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying eligible interest on the refunded amount. The court held that interest accrued on the deposited amount is the property of the owner, and they cannot be deprived of it. Relying on judicial precedents, the court ruled that once confiscation is set aside, the department cannot deny interest merely due to lack of statutory provision. The Bombay High Court held that seized cash must be refunded with interest. The Kerala High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision, held that the interest rate for refunds should be 12%. Although Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were inapplicable, the court determined that the appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment until disbursement. However, considering a recent notification fixing the interest rate at 6%, the court allowed the appeal, entitling the appellants to interest at 6% on the refunded amount from the date of payment till disbursement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.