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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order, holding that the sums of Rs. 3,83,645 and Rs. 3,94,331 paid by the appellant in relation to seized goods released provisionally were not deposits made under protest but amounts of customs duty, thereby rendering Section 35FF inapplicable. The Tribunal directed refund under Section 27A, awarding interest only from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the refund application until actual disbursement, not from date of payment, because the payments constituted duty. The interest rate was fixed at 6% as constrained by the relevant governmental notification and prior judicial determination; Commissioner (Appeals)'s grant of refund with interest was affirmed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
