<?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 (12) TMI 1856 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293393</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the review order under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act was invalid as the refund order was not under the Act. It also determined that the appellant was entitled to interest from the date of deposit in May 1996 to the refund date in December 2015. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the order limiting the interest period was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:30:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1856 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293393</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the review order under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act was invalid as the refund order was not under the Act. It also determined that the appellant was entitled to interest from the date of deposit in May 1996 to the refund date in December 2015. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the order limiting the interest period was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>