<?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 553 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204524</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the department&#039;s appeals, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the penalty payment date issue and the unjust enrichment claim for refund. The judgment clarified the legal provisions and their application in determining the penalty payment timeline and the eligibility for refund in cases of excess deposits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 553 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204524</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the department&#039;s appeals, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the penalty payment date issue and the unjust enrichment claim for refund. The judgment clarified the legal provisions and their application in determining the penalty payment timeline and the eligibility for refund in cases of excess deposits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>