Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited 'under protest' during the pendency of adjudication proceedings and investigation, as it cannot be considered payment of duty and is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deposit made from April 2016 to June 2017, when no show cause notice was issued, was merely a precautionary measure and cannot be characterized as 'duty'. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such deposits are not subject to unjust enrichment principles and allowed the refund claim, setting aside the impugned orders.
The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited 'under protest' during the pendency of adjudication proceedings and investigation, as it cannot be considered payment of duty and is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deposit made from April 2016 to June 2017, when no show cause notice was issued, was merely a precautionary measure and cannot be characterized as 'duty'. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such deposits are not subject to unjust enrichment principles and allowed the refund claim, setting aside the impugned orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
