<?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>2018 (1) TMI 638 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353902</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that interest paid under protest before finalization of assessment is refundable, even if not under Section 11B, as it cannot be retained without legal authority. The refund claim filed within six months of assessment finalization was deemed timely, not time-barred. The Tribunal ruled that the interest payment was not part of the goods&#039; price and did not lead to unjust enrichment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 638 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353902</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that interest paid under protest before finalization of assessment is refundable, even if not under Section 11B, as it cannot be retained without legal authority. The refund claim filed within six months of assessment finalization was deemed timely, not time-barred. The Tribunal ruled that the interest payment was not part of the goods&#039; price and did not lead to unjust enrichment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>