<?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 745 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344474</link>
    <description>Interest on refund of amounts encashed under bank guarantees during provisional assessment under the Customs Act, 1962 was held not maintainable. The earlier refund claim for the encashed amount had been rejected as premature and no appeal was filed against that rejection; the later sanction of principal refund was made without interest. The Tribunal held that the Act did not provide a basis for interest in these circumstances, and it could not award interest on equitable considerations because that would exceed its powers. Authorities cited by the appellants were distinguished as arising under different statutory regimes or in writ jurisdiction. The interest claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 745 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344474</link>
      <description>Interest on refund of amounts encashed under bank guarantees during provisional assessment under the Customs Act, 1962 was held not maintainable. The earlier refund claim for the encashed amount had been rejected as premature and no appeal was filed against that rejection; the later sanction of principal refund was made without interest. The Tribunal held that the Act did not provide a basis for interest in these circumstances, and it could not award interest on equitable considerations because that would exceed its powers. Authorities cited by the appellants were distinguished as arising under different statutory regimes or in writ jurisdiction. The interest claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>