<?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>2014 (9) TMI 876 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251850</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, determining that interest on the refund should commence from the date when the deficiency in the claim was rectified until the refund receipt date, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents and considered the delay caused by the deficiency memo in the refund process, ultimately granting the appellant&#039;s claim for interest under Section 11BB.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 876 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251850</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, determining that interest on the refund should commence from the date when the deficiency in the claim was rectified until the refund receipt date, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents and considered the delay caused by the deficiency memo in the refund process, ultimately granting the appellant&#039;s claim for interest under Section 11BB.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>