<?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 (11) TMI 1520 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371177</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders. In the first case, the appellant was entitled to interest under Sec. 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for a delayed refund claim. The Tribunal ruled that interest should be recalculated and granted promptly. In the second case, the Tribunal held that the demand for a refund claim beyond the time limit was not sustainable, and the amount was ruled refundable to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 07:22:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1520 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371177</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders. In the first case, the appellant was entitled to interest under Sec. 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for a delayed refund claim. The Tribunal ruled that interest should be recalculated and granted promptly. In the second case, the Tribunal held that the demand for a refund claim beyond the time limit was not sustainable, and the amount was ruled refundable to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>