<?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>1986 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72695</link>
    <description>Refund claims under the incentive scheme were treated as timely where the declaration staking entitlement was filed within the relevant period. The Tribunal applied its earlier view on Notification No. 198/76 and the pre-amendment Rule 11 position, holding that later approval of the declaration or later filing of the refund claim did not by itself make the claim time-barred. On that basis, the refund claim was held not barred by limitation and was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 13:35:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72695</link>
      <description>Refund claims under the incentive scheme were treated as timely where the declaration staking entitlement was filed within the relevant period. The Tribunal applied its earlier view on Notification No. 198/76 and the pre-amendment Rule 11 position, holding that later approval of the declaration or later filing of the refund claim did not by itself make the claim time-barred. On that basis, the refund claim was held not barred by limitation and was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>