Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.