https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783704 Whether the revenue could retain and deny interest on sums paid during investigation (including voluntary payments) and as statutory pre-deposit after the underlying demand was set aside was the dominant issue. Applying Article 265 and the principle that no tax can be collected or retained without authority of law, the Tribunal held that amounts paid prior to SCN, though later appropriated in adjudication, stood on the same footing as pre-deposit once the final order reversed the demand; hence the department had no right to continue holding any such sums. Reliance was placed on HC precedent requiring refund with interest where retention was unjustified. The appeal was allowed with direction to refund the entire amounts with applicable interest. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783704 Whether the revenue could retain and deny interest on sums paid during investigation (including voluntary payments) and as statutory pre-deposit after the underlying demand was set aside was the dominant issue. Applying Article 265 and the principle that no tax can be collected or retained without authority of law, the Tribunal held that amounts paid prior to SCN, though later appropriated in adjudication, stood on the same footing as pre-deposit once the final order reversed the demand; hence the department had no right to continue holding any such sums. Reliance was placed on HC precedent requiring refund with interest where retention was unjustified. The appeal was allowed with direction to refund the entire amounts with applicable interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783704