<?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 (12) TMI 366 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117162</link>
    <description>Interest on a refund sanctioned under Rule 173L was payable from the date the refund claim was first settled, because the amount became due on that date and later withholding through further proceedings and objections was without authority of law. Administrative delay in processing could not deprive the assessee of interest for the intervening period, so the original authority had to compute interest from the date of settlement of the refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:22:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 366 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117162</link>
      <description>Interest on a refund sanctioned under Rule 173L was payable from the date the refund claim was first settled, because the amount became due on that date and later withholding through further proceedings and objections was without authority of law. Administrative delay in processing could not deprive the assessee of interest for the intervening period, so the original authority had to compute interest from the date of settlement of the refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>