<?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>2017 (2) TMI 183 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338483</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision to allow interest on the delayed refund of the Redemption Fine. It affirmed the applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the refund, emphasizing the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s authority in issuing the order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, noting their failure to challenge the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s order, thereby confirming the applicability of Section 27A. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of. The judgment underscored the significance of consistency in challenging orders and the statutory provisions in determining refund eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 183 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338483</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision to allow interest on the delayed refund of the Redemption Fine. It affirmed the applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the refund, emphasizing the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s authority in issuing the order. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, noting their failure to challenge the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s order, thereby confirming the applicability of Section 27A. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of. The judgment underscored the significance of consistency in challenging orders and the statutory provisions in determining refund eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>