Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that when an appellant successfully challenges service tax liability, amounts deposited during investigation constitute pre-deposits rather than tax payments, making Section 11B of Central Excise Act inapplicable. The tribunal ruled that refund with interest is automatically payable without requiring separate application filing. The appellant was entitled to interest at 12% per annum from deposit date until refund date, following Supreme Court precedent. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal as non-maintainable since the adjudicating authority had provided specific reasons for denying interest via communication dated 16.02.2023, making the challenge valid. The tribunal emphasized that interest accompanies refunds automatically, with no time limitation for claiming interest when not granted initially.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
