<?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 (8) TMI 371 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203032</link>
    <description>Interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only to delayed refund of duty and not to refund of a security deposit. On the facts, the amount treated as security deposit did not qualify for interest, while the amount accepted as duty attracted interest because its refund was delayed. Interest was therefore denied on the security deposit and allowed only to the extent the refunded amount represented duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 371 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203032</link>
      <description>Interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only to delayed refund of duty and not to refund of a security deposit. On the facts, the amount treated as security deposit did not qualify for interest, while the amount accepted as duty attracted interest because its refund was delayed. Interest was therefore denied on the security deposit and allowed only to the extent the refunded amount represented duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>