<?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>1987 (10) TMI 197 - CEGAT,  MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73404</link>
    <description>Erroneous proforma credit or refund taken under Rule 56A may be recovered as short levy under the excise recovery provision, subject to the applicable limitation period, and Rule 56A(5) does not exclude that remedy. A contention that Section 35E(2) supplied the only proper route was not accepted where the record showed a formal refund order and the issue had not been raised and decided before the Tribunal. The reference was rejected because no referable question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 16:50:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 197 - CEGAT,  MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73404</link>
      <description>Erroneous proforma credit or refund taken under Rule 56A may be recovered as short levy under the excise recovery provision, subject to the applicable limitation period, and Rule 56A(5) does not exclude that remedy. A contention that Section 35E(2) supplied the only proper route was not accepted where the record showed a formal refund order and the issue had not been raised and decided before the Tribunal. The reference was rejected because no referable question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>