Claim filing format under insolvency inspection rules requires identity details, loss explanation, computation, and notarised verification above the t...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
