<?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 (8) TMI 477 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116498</link>
    <description>Entitlement to interest on duty in respect of which abatement was later granted was rejected because the right to refund arose only when the abatement was allowed. Since the amount was credited on the same date and no delay in receipt of the money was established, no basis existed for claiming interest. The lower appellate authority&#039;s rejection of the interest claim was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:35:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 477 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116498</link>
      <description>Entitlement to interest on duty in respect of which abatement was later granted was rejected because the right to refund arose only when the abatement was allowed. Since the amount was credited on the same date and no delay in receipt of the money was established, no basis existed for claiming interest. The lower appellate authority&#039;s rejection of the interest claim was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>