<?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>2007 (6) TMI 201 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30925</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the appropriation of a refunded amount against a confirmed demand, directing a fresh hearing for the appellant. It was held that appropriation against unconfirmed demands is premature, especially when an appeal is pending or a stay is in place. The Member emphasized the importance of finality in demands before sanctioning refunds, ruling in favor of the appellant and ordering the prompt release of the sanctioned refund amount with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 201 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30925</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the appropriation of a refunded amount against a confirmed demand, directing a fresh hearing for the appellant. It was held that appropriation against unconfirmed demands is premature, especially when an appeal is pending or a stay is in place. The Member emphasized the importance of finality in demands before sanctioning refunds, ruling in favor of the appellant and ordering the prompt release of the sanctioned refund amount with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>