https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450507 The Madras HC held that the declaration under the Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme was correctly categorised as arrears, because the date of final hearing in the original adjudication, not the later order date, determined whether the claim fell within litigation or arrears. On pre-deposit credit, the Court held that the expression "any amount paid as pre-deposit" is wide enough to include interest payments, but such credit can be allowed only on proof supported by records. The categorisation challenge was rejected, while the computation issue was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce supporting documents. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 20:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450507 The Madras HC held that the declaration under the Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme was correctly categorised as arrears, because the date of final hearing in the original adjudication, not the later order date, determined whether the claim fell within litigation or arrears. On pre-deposit credit, the Court held that the expression "any amount paid as pre-deposit" is wide enough to include interest payments, but such credit can be allowed only on proof supported by records. The categorisation challenge was rejected, while the computation issue was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce supporting documents. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450507