Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
Amounts deposited during investigation at the Department's insistence and while duty liability was still contested were treated as payments made under a mistaken notion of liability, not as voluntary central excise duty. On that basis, the amount did not acquire the character of duty for denying interest under Section 11B. Following its earlier view in Harrisons Industries and distinguishing Goldy Engineering Works, the Tribunal held that interest was payable at 12% per annum on the refunded amount from the date of deposit until the date of refund.
Amounts deposited during investigation at the Department's insistence and while duty liability was still contested were treated as payments made under a mistaken notion of liability, not as voluntary central excise duty. On that basis, the amount did not acquire the character of duty for denying interest under Section 11B. Following its earlier view in Harrisons Industries and distinguishing Goldy Engineering Works, the Tribunal held that interest was payable at 12% per annum on the refunded amount from the date of deposit until the date of refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.