<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1033 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153610</link>
    <description>Where a duty demand has already been set aside on merits and that merits finding is not challenged, interest cannot survive independently on the same demand. The remand was limited to the question of interest for the delayed period, but the earlier tribunal decision had nullified the underlying demand in full. In the absence of any surviving enforceable demand, the basis for charging interest disappeared, and interest was held not payable on the remanded issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:59:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1033 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153610</link>
      <description>Where a duty demand has already been set aside on merits and that merits finding is not challenged, interest cannot survive independently on the same demand. The remand was limited to the question of interest for the delayed period, but the earlier tribunal decision had nullified the underlying demand in full. In the absence of any surviving enforceable demand, the basis for charging interest disappeared, and interest was held not payable on the remanded issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>