<?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>2025 (5) TMI 2239 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466771</link>
    <description>CESTAT addressed (i) entitlement to interest on an amount retained without authority and (ii) entitlement to interest for sums treated as statutory pre-deposit. It held that amounts retained without authority attract compensatory interest for the period before a stay (appellant entitled to interest for 01.07.2008-31.10.2012 as allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)), but once sums attain the character of pre-deposit their interest entitlement is governed by the statutory framework for pre-deposit interest (the Section 35FF/11BB scheme and the three month/communication rules), so the appellant&#039;s wider claim for interest beyond the admitted period failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 13:56:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2239 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466771</link>
      <description>CESTAT addressed (i) entitlement to interest on an amount retained without authority and (ii) entitlement to interest for sums treated as statutory pre-deposit. It held that amounts retained without authority attract compensatory interest for the period before a stay (appellant entitled to interest for 01.07.2008-31.10.2012 as allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)), but once sums attain the character of pre-deposit their interest entitlement is governed by the statutory framework for pre-deposit interest (the Section 35FF/11BB scheme and the three month/communication rules), so the appellant&#039;s wider claim for interest beyond the admitted period failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>