<?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>2004 (6) TMI 59 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48999</link>
    <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed miscellaneous applications in two separate cases concerning interest payment by Revenue. In the first case, the Tribunal upheld its order directing interest payment calculated from the Tribunal&#039;s order date. In the second case, the Tribunal maintained its decision denying interest from the date of the SC judgment that remanded the matter. Both applications challenging the Tribunal&#039;s earlier orders were rejected, confirming the original determinations on interest liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 59 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48999</link>
      <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed miscellaneous applications in two separate cases concerning interest payment by Revenue. In the first case, the Tribunal upheld its order directing interest payment calculated from the Tribunal&#039;s order date. In the second case, the Tribunal maintained its decision denying interest from the date of the SC judgment that remanded the matter. Both applications challenging the Tribunal&#039;s earlier orders were rejected, confirming the original determinations on interest liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>