https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121373 Interest was found payable where the department retained a pre-deposit after the earlier order setting aside reversal of Modvat credit, because there was no confirmed basis for retention during the intervening period until the later rejection of the credit under Rule 57Q. Once that later rejection order came into existence, the right to retain the amount revived, limiting interest to the period of unlawful detention only. No interest was allowed on a separate refund claim relating to capital goods Modvat credit, as the claim was ultimately granted without departmental delay at the sanction stage and the credit entitlement itself was doubtful when the scheme was not then operative for the goods. en-us Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:42:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121373 Interest was found payable where the department retained a pre-deposit after the earlier order setting aside reversal of Modvat credit, because there was no confirmed basis for retention during the intervening period until the later rejection of the credit under Rule 57Q. Once that later rejection order came into existence, the right to retain the amount revived, limiting interest to the period of unlawful detention only. No interest was allowed on a separate refund claim relating to capital goods Modvat credit, as the claim was ultimately granted without departmental delay at the sanction stage and the credit entitlement itself was doubtful when the scheme was not then operative for the goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121373