<?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>2019 (4) TMI 470 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378026</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rectified a mistake in the final order regarding the imposition of interest under Sec.11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was acknowledged that Sec.11AB did not exist during the relevant period (1991-1995) and was introduced in 1996. Therefore, applying these provisions retrospectively was deemed impermissible. The Tribunal concluded that no interest was chargeable under Sec.11AB for the period in question, and the final order was corrected accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:28:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 470 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378026</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rectified a mistake in the final order regarding the imposition of interest under Sec.11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was acknowledged that Sec.11AB did not exist during the relevant period (1991-1995) and was introduced in 1996. Therefore, applying these provisions retrospectively was deemed impermissible. The Tribunal concluded that no interest was chargeable under Sec.11AB for the period in question, and the final order was corrected accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>