<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (8) TMI 350 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93833</link>
    <description>A pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act had to be returned to the assessee once the adjudication order was set aside, and the amount could not be diverted to RG-23A Part II credit because it was not a duty-payment document. The retained sum was also required to be refunded within three months of the Tribunal&#039;s final order; failure to do so made the continued retention unlawful for the delay period and attracted interest at 12% per annum until payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:14:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 350 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93833</link>
      <description>A pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act had to be returned to the assessee once the adjudication order was set aside, and the amount could not be diverted to RG-23A Part II credit because it was not a duty-payment document. The retained sum was also required to be refunded within three months of the Tribunal&#039;s final order; failure to do so made the continued retention unlawful for the delay period and attracted interest at 12% per annum until payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>