<?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>2012 (7) TMI 784 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215286</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision, granting relief to the appellant in a case concerning rebate claim rejection and interest payment dispute. The Tribunal aligned with legal precedents, emphasizing interest liability from the refund claim application date, not the order date. Citing the Rajasthan High Court&#039;s decision and the Supreme Court&#039;s stance in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. UoI, the Tribunal ruled in favor of calculating interest under Section 11BB from the refund claim application date for prompt payment post 3 months. The impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 784 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215286</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision, granting relief to the appellant in a case concerning rebate claim rejection and interest payment dispute. The Tribunal aligned with legal precedents, emphasizing interest liability from the refund claim application date, not the order date. Citing the Rajasthan High Court&#039;s decision and the Supreme Court&#039;s stance in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. UoI, the Tribunal ruled in favor of calculating interest under Section 11BB from the refund claim application date for prompt payment post 3 months. The impugned order was set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>