<?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>2021 (8) TMI 1115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411537</link>
    <description>Where an escalation or price-variation clause operates retrospectively, differential central excise duty is treated as arising from the finally determined enhanced price at the time of removal, and interest follows that duty liability. The analysis applies the binding Supreme Court principle that interest is payable on such differential duty under the excise framework. On that basis, refund of interest already paid was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 1115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411537</link>
      <description>Where an escalation or price-variation clause operates retrospectively, differential central excise duty is treated as arising from the finally determined enhanced price at the time of removal, and interest follows that duty liability. The analysis applies the binding Supreme Court principle that interest is payable on such differential duty under the excise framework. On that basis, refund of interest already paid was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>