https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771720 CESTAT Allahabad held that NCCD amount paid by appellant through Cenvat credit constituted a deposit rather than duty payment. The tribunal applied restitution principles, ruling that prolonged government retention of wrongfully deposited funds entitled appellant to interest from deposit date until refund. The court determined refund claims for such deposits are not time-barred under Section 11B. Interest limitation to 7.5% under Section 35F was deemed erroneous and set aside. The tribunal emphasized preventing unjust enrichment where government retained funds for extended period. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771720 CESTAT Allahabad held that NCCD amount paid by appellant through Cenvat credit constituted a deposit rather than duty payment. The tribunal applied restitution principles, ruling that prolonged government retention of wrongfully deposited funds entitled appellant to interest from deposit date until refund. The court determined refund claims for such deposits are not time-barred under Section 11B. Interest limitation to 7.5% under Section 35F was deemed erroneous and set aside. The tribunal emphasized preventing unjust enrichment where government retained funds for extended period. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771720