<?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>2003 (4) TMI 375 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107703</link>
    <description>Amounts deposited as duty pending appeal were treated as duty, so once refund became due under the earlier appellate orders, delay beyond the prescribed period attracted interest under Section 11BB. The argument based on a stay order under Section 35F was held irrelevant to entitlement to refund interest. Interest was therefore payable on the delayed refund of the duty amounts deposited by the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:40:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 375 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107703</link>
      <description>Amounts deposited as duty pending appeal were treated as duty, so once refund became due under the earlier appellate orders, delay beyond the prescribed period attracted interest under Section 11BB. The argument based on a stay order under Section 35F was held irrelevant to entitlement to refund interest. Interest was therefore payable on the delayed refund of the duty amounts deposited by the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>