TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses appeal, upholds refund demand under Section 11A or 28.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EXCISE, MUMBAI-I Versus INGA LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.</h3> The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal confirmed that a demand for refund wrongly sanctioned must be made under Section 11A or Section 28, allowing for ... Demand of refund wrongly sanctioned The appeal was against the Collector (Appeals) order, which held that demand was barred by limitation as no notice demanding duty was issued under Section 11A. The Tribunal confirmed that demand for refund wrongly sanctioned must be made under Section 11A or Section 28. The appeal was dismissed, allowing for consequential refund if permitted by law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
