<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (4) TMI 769 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326655</link>
    <description>An amount paid during investigation towards disputed MODVAT credit, where the assessee had already linked the payment to the inadmissible credit and had not pursued admissibility in earlier proceedings, is not to be treated as a refundable deposit. The Tribunal applied the principle that a party cannot later take a contrary stand on the character of such payment, and held that the first appellate view treating it as a deposit was incorrect. Refund was therefore not maintainable, the Revenue&#039;s appeal succeeded, and the original rejection of refund was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2016 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 769 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326655</link>
      <description>An amount paid during investigation towards disputed MODVAT credit, where the assessee had already linked the payment to the inadmissible credit and had not pursued admissibility in earlier proceedings, is not to be treated as a refundable deposit. The Tribunal applied the principle that a party cannot later take a contrary stand on the character of such payment, and held that the first appellate view treating it as a deposit was incorrect. Refund was therefore not maintainable, the Revenue&#039;s appeal succeeded, and the original rejection of refund was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>