<?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>2008 (7) TMI 658 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124012</link>
    <description>Interest paid on delayed discharge of duty was treated as refundable where the underlying duty could have been met by utilising available Cenvat credit and the short payment was later made good. The Cenvat Credit Rules were read as barring only use of credit earned in a subsequent month for an earlier month&#039;s duty, not as prohibiting credit from being used to regularise a short-paid or unpaid amount once the default was noticed. As the duty for August clearances was paid in September within a few days, payment from PLA was not necessary. The refund claim was therefore allowable because the interest was not legally exigible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:04:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 658 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124012</link>
      <description>Interest paid on delayed discharge of duty was treated as refundable where the underlying duty could have been met by utilising available Cenvat credit and the short payment was later made good. The Cenvat Credit Rules were read as barring only use of credit earned in a subsequent month for an earlier month&#039;s duty, not as prohibiting credit from being used to regularise a short-paid or unpaid amount once the default was noticed. As the duty for August clearances was paid in September within a few days, payment from PLA was not necessary. The refund claim was therefore allowable because the interest was not legally exigible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>