https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418300 The Commissioner (Appeals) was found incompetent to remand the appeal back to the adjudicating authority due to an amendment in the Customs Act, as established in the case of MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE Noida. Additionally, the appellant was deemed entitled to interest on the sanctioned refund amount from the date of deposit, at a rate of 12% per annum, following precedents such as Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC CGST Noida and Marshal Foundary and Engg Pvt Ltd. vs. CGST Faridabad. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:44:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418300 The Commissioner (Appeals) was found incompetent to remand the appeal back to the adjudicating authority due to an amendment in the Customs Act, as established in the case of MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE Noida. Additionally, the appellant was deemed entitled to interest on the sanctioned refund amount from the date of deposit, at a rate of 12% per annum, following precedents such as Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC CGST Noida and Marshal Foundary and Engg Pvt Ltd. vs. CGST Faridabad. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418300