<?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>2005 (6) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116356</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the issue of interest on the refunded amount. It was held that since the Revenue did not appeal the Adjudication Order sanctioning the refund, the Commissioner erred in setting it aside. The Appellants were deemed entitled to the refund, and the decision on interest required further deliberation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:44:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116356</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the issue of interest on the refunded amount. It was held that since the Revenue did not appeal the Adjudication Order sanctioning the refund, the Commissioner erred in setting it aside. The Appellants were deemed entitled to the refund, and the decision on interest required further deliberation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>