<?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>1995 (2) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44214</link>
    <description>Interest on differential excise duty paid in instalments was held unsustainable where no statutory provision authorised such levy and no instalment order imposed interest as a condition. A Board circular alone could not create a liability to pay interest. The Court held that allowing instalment payment was mere indulgence and did not, by itself, generate an enforceable interest obligation. The demand for interest was therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:37:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44214</link>
      <description>Interest on differential excise duty paid in instalments was held unsustainable where no statutory provision authorised such levy and no instalment order imposed interest as a condition. A Board circular alone could not create a liability to pay interest. The Court held that allowing instalment payment was mere indulgence and did not, by itself, generate an enforceable interest obligation. The demand for interest was therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>