<?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 (6) TMI 420 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344149</link>
    <description>The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants. It was determined that the refund of the pre-deposit amount should have been granted within 3 months from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The delay in processing the refund was noted, and the appellants were deemed entitled to interest on the refund. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were granted interest from a specified date to another date at the prescribed rate under the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 420 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344149</link>
      <description>The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants. It was determined that the refund of the pre-deposit amount should have been granted within 3 months from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The delay in processing the refund was noted, and the appellants were deemed entitled to interest on the refund. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were granted interest from a specified date to another date at the prescribed rate under the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>