New LODR Fifth Amendment reshapes related party transaction rules, disclosure duties, and non-convertible security communication timelines under Sched...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by M/s X against the Revenue, holding that a Single Member Bench had jurisdiction under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to decide a dispute confined solely to interest on refund of a revenue deposit, as interest is distinct from duty, fine or penalty and is not within the excluded categories. The Tribunal held that the assessee is legally entitled to interest on the refunded deposit of Rs. 5 crores, applying the doctrine of compensation for wrongful retention of money. It directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit during investigation until the date of actual refund. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with the assessee's separate interest claim application held maintainable.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by M/s X against the Revenue, holding that a Single Member Bench had jurisdiction under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to decide a dispute confined solely to interest on refund of a revenue deposit, as interest is distinct from duty, fine or penalty and is not within the excluded categories. The Tribunal held that the assessee is legally entitled to interest on the refunded deposit of Rs. 5 crores, applying the doctrine of compensation for wrongful retention of money. It directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit during investigation until the date of actual refund. The appeal was accordingly allowed, with the assessee's separate interest claim application held maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
