<?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>2009 (2) TMI 172 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34733</link>
    <description>The CESTAT allowed the refund claim for duty paid under protest on excisable products, except for two specific payments. The rejection of the refund claim for Rs. 27,800 was upheld as there was no evidence of it being paid under protest. However, the appellant was granted interest on the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 4,56,000 from the date of deposit, contrary to the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 172 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34733</link>
      <description>The CESTAT allowed the refund claim for duty paid under protest on excisable products, except for two specific payments. The rejection of the refund claim for Rs. 27,800 was upheld as there was no evidence of it being paid under protest. However, the appellant was granted interest on the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 4,56,000 from the date of deposit, contrary to the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>