https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124049 Interest on the delayed refund of a pre-deposit was claimed, but the deposit had been made before any provision for refund interest existed. The Tribunal held that Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules could not be invoked on the facts, because that rule applies only where necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice. The claim for interest on the refunded pre-deposit was rejected, and relief under Rule 41 was refused. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:13:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124049 Interest on the delayed refund of a pre-deposit was claimed, but the deposit had been made before any provision for refund interest existed. The Tribunal held that Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules could not be invoked on the facts, because that rule applies only where necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice. The claim for interest on the refunded pre-deposit was rejected, and relief under Rule 41 was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124049