<?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 (11) TMI 251 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388002</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant is not entitled to interest on delayed payment of interest and that the statutory rate of interest on delayed refunds is applicable. The Tribunal also rejected the argument for adjusting the refunded amount towards interest liability first, affirming that such a rule is not applicable in the context of indirect tax refunds. The orders under challenge were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2020 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 251 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388002</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant is not entitled to interest on delayed payment of interest and that the statutory rate of interest on delayed refunds is applicable. The Tribunal also rejected the argument for adjusting the refunded amount towards interest liability first, affirming that such a rule is not applicable in the context of indirect tax refunds. The orders under challenge were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>