https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780654 CESTAT allowed the appeal, directing Revenue to refund Rs.15,13,432 with applicable interest from the date three months after the refund application. The tribunal found the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reject the refund after Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the original order and allowed the refund; remanding by the Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for failing to correct the adjudicating officer's error. The tribunal reprimanded departmental adjudication process and ordered payment of the contested amount with interest. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780654 CESTAT allowed the appeal, directing Revenue to refund Rs.15,13,432 with applicable interest from the date three months after the refund application. The tribunal found the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reject the refund after Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the original order and allowed the refund; remanding by the Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for failing to correct the adjudicating officer's error. The tribunal reprimanded departmental adjudication process and ordered payment of the contested amount with interest. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780654