<?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>2022 (8) TMI 1008 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426769</link>
    <description>A voluntary deposit made during investigation did not acquire the character of a pre-deposit merely because the earlier adjudication was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. Where the appellate order directed the parties to maintain status quo until reconsideration, the deposit remained a voluntary payment and could not be treated as refundable as a pre-deposit. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable, and the rejection of refund was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:13:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1008 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426769</link>
      <description>A voluntary deposit made during investigation did not acquire the character of a pre-deposit merely because the earlier adjudication was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. Where the appellate order directed the parties to maintain status quo until reconsideration, the deposit remained a voluntary payment and could not be treated as refundable as a pre-deposit. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable, and the rejection of refund was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>