<?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 (4) TMI 157 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358046</link>
    <description>Interest on delayed refund was payable where the refund had been retained despite later evidence showing that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The earlier transfer of the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund on unjust enrichment grounds did not justify denial of interest once the matter was remanded and the appellant established entitlement to the refund. Following the earlier Tribunal view on the same refund period, the demand to recover the interest was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:22:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 157 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358046</link>
      <description>Interest on delayed refund was payable where the refund had been retained despite later evidence showing that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The earlier transfer of the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund on unjust enrichment grounds did not justify denial of interest once the matter was remanded and the appellant established entitlement to the refund. Following the earlier Tribunal view on the same refund period, the demand to recover the interest was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>