<?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 (8) TMI 731 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124918</link>
    <description>Interest on refund of pre-deposit was payable from the date the Tribunal&#039;s order finally fixed the assessable value, because only duty quantification remained before the original authority. In the absence of any stay from the Supreme Court, the assessment attained finality on the Tribunal&#039;s order itself and the refund should have followed in the ordinary course from that date. Board circulars were consistent with interest becoming payable once the matter stood finally concluded at the Tribunal stage. The Revenue&#039;s contention that interest should run only from the later dismissal of its appeal by the Supreme Court was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:14:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 731 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124918</link>
      <description>Interest on refund of pre-deposit was payable from the date the Tribunal&#039;s order finally fixed the assessable value, because only duty quantification remained before the original authority. In the absence of any stay from the Supreme Court, the assessment attained finality on the Tribunal&#039;s order itself and the refund should have followed in the ordinary course from that date. Board circulars were consistent with interest becoming payable once the matter stood finally concluded at the Tribunal stage. The Revenue&#039;s contention that interest should run only from the later dismissal of its appeal by the Supreme Court was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>