https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751608 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding recovery of erroneous refund of Rs.4,80,000. The appellant's Chennai unit paid pre-deposit for an appeal arising from Tuticorin Central Excise Division order. Lower authorities rejected refund claim treating pre-deposit as excess tax payment and applying Section 11B limitation. CESTAT held that pre-deposit nature cannot change to excess payment once Commissioner (Appeals) accepted it for appeal hearing. Relying on Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India, tribunal ruled Section 11B provisions inapplicable to pre-deposits under Section 35F. Appellant entitled to refund of pre-deposit amount. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751608 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding recovery of erroneous refund of Rs.4,80,000. The appellant's Chennai unit paid pre-deposit for an appeal arising from Tuticorin Central Excise Division order. Lower authorities rejected refund claim treating pre-deposit as excess tax payment and applying Section 11B limitation. CESTAT held that pre-deposit nature cannot change to excess payment once Commissioner (Appeals) accepted it for appeal hearing. Relying on Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India, tribunal ruled Section 11B provisions inapplicable to pre-deposits under Section 35F. Appellant entitled to refund of pre-deposit amount. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751608