<?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>2003 (5) TMI 115 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted interest to the applicant from the date of its order until the refund order, based on previous judgments allowing interest for delays in refunding amounts deposited pursuant to a stay order. The Tribunal found the delay in refunding the deposit unjustified, exercising inherent powers to grant interest. This decision emphasizes the significance of timely implementation of Tribunal orders and the use of inherent powers in cases of delayed refunds to uphold justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 115 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted interest to the applicant from the date of its order until the refund order, based on previous judgments allowing interest for delays in refunding amounts deposited pursuant to a stay order. The Tribunal found the delay in refunding the deposit unjustified, exercising inherent powers to grant interest. This decision emphasizes the significance of timely implementation of Tribunal orders and the use of inherent powers in cases of delayed refunds to uphold justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>