IBC resolution plan immunity from money-laundering: corporate debtor removed as accused; cases continue against ex-directors, attached assets refunded...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7541 to 7560 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is lawfully entitled to interest on amounts deposited during investigation and as mandatory pre-deposit from the date of each deposit until the date of refund. The Tribunal distinguished such deposits from "duty" or "tax" governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reiterating that they are mere deposits on which the department has no beneficial interest unless duly appropriated. As the interest was correctly computed from the date of deposit, it did not constitute an erroneous payment, and consequently no recovery or penalty proceedings were sustainable against the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant is lawfully entitled to interest on amounts deposited during investigation and as mandatory pre-deposit from the date of each deposit until the date of refund. The Tribunal distinguished such deposits from "duty" or "tax" governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reiterating that they are mere deposits on which the department has no beneficial interest unless duly appropriated. As the interest was correctly computed from the date of deposit, it did not constitute an erroneous payment, and consequently no recovery or penalty proceedings were sustainable against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
