<?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>1988 (2) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73507</link>
    <description>Refund claims linked to determination of base clearances were treated as time-barred or timely by reference to the date of filing the prescribed declaration, not merely the date of the quantified refund application; claims arising after approval of base clearance remained subject to the ordinary limitation period from the date of payment. The text also notes that the validity of filing with the Superintendent, rather than the Assistant Collector, depended on the Collectorate&#039;s prevailing procedural practice, which was not factually established on record. On that basis, the matter was remitted for fresh examination of admissibility of the refund claim under the applicable procedural requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:57:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73507</link>
      <description>Refund claims linked to determination of base clearances were treated as time-barred or timely by reference to the date of filing the prescribed declaration, not merely the date of the quantified refund application; claims arising after approval of base clearance remained subject to the ordinary limitation period from the date of payment. The text also notes that the validity of filing with the Superintendent, rather than the Assistant Collector, depended on the Collectorate&#039;s prevailing procedural practice, which was not factually established on record. On that basis, the matter was remitted for fresh examination of admissibility of the refund claim under the applicable procedural requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>