https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762828 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal challenging rejection of refund claim as time-barred. The tribunal held that amount deposited under Section 35F of CEA during appeal pendency constituted pre-deposit, not duty payment. Citing Gujarat HC precedent in Ghaziabad Ship Breakers case, CESTAT ruled that pre-deposits made for appeal hearing must be refunded without examining Section 11B requirements. The appellant was entitled to refund with applicable interest under Section 35FF as existed when deposit was made. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2024 10:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762828 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal challenging rejection of refund claim as time-barred. The tribunal held that amount deposited under Section 35F of CEA during appeal pendency constituted pre-deposit, not duty payment. Citing Gujarat HC precedent in Ghaziabad Ship Breakers case, CESTAT ruled that pre-deposits made for appeal hearing must be refunded without examining Section 11B requirements. The appellant was entitled to refund with applicable interest under Section 35FF as existed when deposit was made. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762828