<?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>2016 (8) TMI 195 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330811</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant&#039;s refund claim for excess interest paid due to a miscalculation. Despite no specific provision for interest refunds, the Tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s refusal unjust as the excess payment resulted from a mere arithmetical error. Citing previous orders and precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the legality of refunding excess interest collected without authority. The impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 195 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330811</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant&#039;s refund claim for excess interest paid due to a miscalculation. Despite no specific provision for interest refunds, the Tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s refusal unjust as the excess payment resulted from a mere arithmetical error. Citing previous orders and precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the legality of refunding excess interest collected without authority. The impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>