https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754884 CESTAT Chandigarh held that duty payments made during appeal pendency constitute pre-deposits under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, not regular duty payments. The tribunal ruled that such pre-deposits are not subject to Section 11B provisions or unjust enrichment doctrine. Appellants were entitled to refund without proving burden non-passing, as certified accountant statements have evidentiary value. The court distinguished between pre-2014 and post-2014 amendments, allowing interest on delayed refunds for amounts deposited after 06.08.2014 under amended Section 35FF. Appeal partially allowed. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2024 20:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754884 CESTAT Chandigarh held that duty payments made during appeal pendency constitute pre-deposits under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, not regular duty payments. The tribunal ruled that such pre-deposits are not subject to Section 11B provisions or unjust enrichment doctrine. Appellants were entitled to refund without proving burden non-passing, as certified accountant statements have evidentiary value. The court distinguished between pre-2014 and post-2014 amendments, allowing interest on delayed refunds for amounts deposited after 06.08.2014 under amended Section 35FF. Appeal partially allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754884