Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.60 seconds)Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 October, 2011
13. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in the above case laws,
we hold that the appellant is eligible for the interest taking the refund
claim date as the base. The appellant has filed the refund claim on
22.11.2007. Hence after considering the period of 3 months for
processing of this application, the interest would be payable from
22.02.2008 till the date on which the refund has been paid to them.
J.K. Cement Works vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 10 February, 2004
In our view the law laid down by the
Rajasthan High Court succinctly in the case of J.K. Cement
Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise &
Customs reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 4 vide Para 33:
M/S Al-Hamd Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Noida on 14 June, 2016
15. The Allahabad Bench, in the case of Parle Agro Pvt Ltd Vs
CCGST, Noida - 2022(380) ELT 219 (Tri-All), has held as under:
Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors on 27 January, 2006
"I further take notice that Divisioin Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro (P)
Ltd. Vs. ommissioner, CGST - 2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT ALL, wherein
interest on pre-deposit (made during investigation) have been enhanced
from 6% to 12%, following the ruling of the Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd.
Vs. Commissioner - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). I further direct the
Adjudicating Authority to grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of
deposit till the date of refund. Such interest should be granted within a
period of two months from the date of receipt or service of the copy of this
order."
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 17 August, 2015
"8. Considering the rival contentions, this appeal by the
Revenue is dismissed. Further, it is directed that the
Adjudicating Authority shall disburse the amount of interest
@12% per annum forthwith, within a period of 45 days from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order, as held by Division
Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro (P) Ltd., (supra)."
Principal Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi ... vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt Ltd on 2 September, 2022
16. Similar view was taken in case of Pr. Commr. of CGST, New
Delhi Vs. Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2021 (55)
GSTL 311 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that amount deposited
during investigation and/or pending litigation is ipso facto pre-deposit
and interest is payable on such amount to the assessee being
successful in appeal, from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
Further, it is directed that the adjudicating authority shall disburse the
amount of interest @ 12% per annum forthwith.
Commr. Of Cus. & C. Ex., Ahmedabad-Ii vs Manan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on 2 January, 2002
(7) Further, reliance is placed in the case of Commissioner
of C. Ex., Pune- II vs. Sulaki Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported
in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5031: (2014) 310 ELT 511
wherein the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay has held that, the
appellate order allowing the refund of duty relates back to the
order of the original authority and therefore by virtue of
6
Service Tax Appeal No. 76497 of 2024
substantive Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944
interest on the refund amount has to be paid from the date
immediately after three months from the date of receipt of the
application to the original authority till the refund of authority.
Arihant Evergreen Agro And Textiles ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 30 March, 2021
15. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida (vice- Versa)
reported as 2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLHABAD has held that in the
light of the above discussed notifications the grant of interest at the rate of
12% per annum seems to be appropriate.
1