<?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 (7) TMI 272 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32389</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order allowing interest on delay in payment of a refund claim. The Tribunal determined that interest should be paid from the date immediately after three months from the refund application until the refund payment date, based on established precedents. The decision emphasized adherence to relevant case law in calculating interest on delayed refund payments, rejecting the revenue&#039;s appeal and disposing of the cross objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 272 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32389</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order allowing interest on delay in payment of a refund claim. The Tribunal determined that interest should be paid from the date immediately after three months from the refund application until the refund payment date, based on established precedents. The decision emphasized adherence to relevant case law in calculating interest on delayed refund payments, rejecting the revenue&#039;s appeal and disposing of the cross objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>