https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126711 The case involved allegations of suppression of production of excisable goods and their removal without payment of duty against four assessees. The lower authorities confirmed demands and imposed penalties, later vacated by the Commissioner (Appeals). Assessees claimed refund of deposits made during investigation and under Section 35F of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned interest on the deposits beyond three months of the Tribunal's remand orders. The Tribunal held that interest on refund of pre-deposit should be granted from the date of the final order passed by the Tribunal. Both Revenue and assessees appealed regarding interest on pre-deposit, but their appeals failed, and the impugned order was sustained. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:06:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126711 The case involved allegations of suppression of production of excisable goods and their removal without payment of duty against four assessees. The lower authorities confirmed demands and imposed penalties, later vacated by the Commissioner (Appeals). Assessees claimed refund of deposits made during investigation and under Section 35F of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned interest on the deposits beyond three months of the Tribunal's remand orders. The Tribunal held that interest on refund of pre-deposit should be granted from the date of the final order passed by the Tribunal. Both Revenue and assessees appealed regarding interest on pre-deposit, but their appeals failed, and the impugned order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126711