<?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 (6) TMI 816 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178649</link>
    <description>Retrospective withdrawal of an excise exemption was treated as if the exemption had never existed, so refunded duty became recoverable with interest and other statutory charges. The liability continued where the statute expressly covered amounts that would have been collected but for the exemption, and interest applied once the recoverable sum remained unpaid beyond the prescribed period. An interim stay did not extinguish that statutory liability, because interim protection is only provisional and restitution requires the parties to be restored to the position they would have occupied absent the stay. The demand for interest on the refunded duty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:59:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 816 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178649</link>
      <description>Retrospective withdrawal of an excise exemption was treated as if the exemption had never existed, so refunded duty became recoverable with interest and other statutory charges. The liability continued where the statute expressly covered amounts that would have been collected but for the exemption, and interest applied once the recoverable sum remained unpaid beyond the prescribed period. An interim stay did not extinguish that statutory liability, because interim protection is only provisional and restitution requires the parties to be restored to the position they would have occupied absent the stay. The demand for interest on the refunded duty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>