<?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>2011 (7) TMI 273 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206039</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the debarment order due to default in duty payment, directing the respondents to pay the demanded interest. The refund claim of Rs.3,53,171 was denied as there was no evidence of double payment, restoring the original authority&#039;s decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the refund based on a claim of double payment, as the duty payment under protest was not substantiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179538" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 273 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206039</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the debarment order due to default in duty payment, directing the respondents to pay the demanded interest. The refund claim of Rs.3,53,171 was denied as there was no evidence of double payment, restoring the original authority&#039;s decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the refund based on a claim of double payment, as the duty payment under protest was not substantiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>