https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189089 Refund of duty deposited under protest could not be refused once the revisional authority had finally set aside the underlying demand and that order had attained finality. The refunding authority could not reopen the same under-valuation issue to retain the amount, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not justify ignoring the binding superior order. The delayed refund also justified monetary relief: simple interest was directed from three months after the refund application, together with costs, because the claim had already accrued and further litigation had been wrongly compelled. en-us Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189089 Refund of duty deposited under protest could not be refused once the revisional authority had finally set aside the underlying demand and that order had attained finality. The refunding authority could not reopen the same under-valuation issue to retain the amount, and the existence of an alternative remedy did not justify ignoring the binding superior order. The delayed refund also justified monetary relief: simple interest was directed from three months after the refund application, together with costs, because the claim had already accrued and further litigation had been wrongly compelled. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189089