https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334454 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electronic goods, faced a demand for duty payment of Rs. 22,21,477 by the audit party, which was paid under protest. The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund appeal, leading to an appeal before CESTAT, Bangalore. CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Appeal, partially granting the refund. The Asst. Commissioner further sanctioned a refund, but the appellant appealed again. The Judicial Member allowed the appeal, directing the payment of interest on the refund amount, citing relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:32:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334454 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electronic goods, faced a demand for duty payment of Rs. 22,21,477 by the audit party, which was paid under protest. The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund appeal, leading to an appeal before CESTAT, Bangalore. CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Appeal, partially granting the refund. The Asst. Commissioner further sanctioned a refund, but the appellant appealed again. The Judicial Member allowed the appeal, directing the payment of interest on the refund amount, citing relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334454