<?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>2004 (2) TMI 468 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111146</link>
    <description>Where a refund is sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner but interest on the refunded amount is disputed, the refund order itself is an appealable order under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that the applicants, being dissatisfied only with non-payment of interest, must pursue the statutory appellate remedy against that refund order rather than seek enforcement through a miscellaneous application. As the earlier final order had already set aside the demand and the refund had been granted, no separate legal basis was shown for maintaining the application. The miscellaneous application was therefore dismissed, leaving the applicants to challenge the refund order in accordance with the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:54:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 468 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111146</link>
      <description>Where a refund is sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner but interest on the refunded amount is disputed, the refund order itself is an appealable order under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal held that the applicants, being dissatisfied only with non-payment of interest, must pursue the statutory appellate remedy against that refund order rather than seek enforcement through a miscellaneous application. As the earlier final order had already set aside the demand and the refund had been granted, no separate legal basis was shown for maintaining the application. The miscellaneous application was therefore dismissed, leaving the applicants to challenge the refund order in accordance with the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>