https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778613 HC allowed the appeal, holding that the pre-deposit retained its character as a pre-deposit and was not a payment of the penalty; CESTAT erred in treating it as discharge of penalty. As the appellant contested the levy and sought refund, Revenue became liable to pay interest on the refunded pre-deposit where refund was not made within three months of the application. The appellant is entitled to interest from expiry of three months until payment; decision is in favour of the appellant and against Revenue. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778613 HC allowed the appeal, holding that the pre-deposit retained its character as a pre-deposit and was not a payment of the penalty; CESTAT erred in treating it as discharge of penalty. As the appellant contested the levy and sought refund, Revenue became liable to pay interest on the refunded pre-deposit where refund was not made within three months of the application. The appellant is entitled to interest from expiry of three months until payment; decision is in favour of the appellant and against Revenue. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778613