<?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 (11) TMI 101 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334083</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to interest on the refund from three months of the date of filing the refund application until the refund was sanctioned, following the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in the Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. case. The impugned order was set aside, and the adjudicating authority was directed to grant the interest to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the cross objections filed by the respondent were disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 101 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334083</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to interest on the refund from three months of the date of filing the refund application until the refund was sanctioned, following the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in the Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. case. The impugned order was set aside, and the adjudicating authority was directed to grant the interest to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the cross objections filed by the respondent were disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>