<?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>2009 (2) TMI 328 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75478</link>
    <description>A refund claim under the Customs Act was not barred by limitation where the original assessment was later rectified under Section 154. The refund dispute arose only after the assessment was corrected pursuant to the Supreme Court&#039;s direction, so the cause for refund was treated as stemming from the rectified assessment rather than the original payment of duty. On that basis, limitation under Section 27 could not run from the earlier payment date, and the time-bar objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 328 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75478</link>
      <description>A refund claim under the Customs Act was not barred by limitation where the original assessment was later rectified under Section 154. The refund dispute arose only after the assessment was corrected pursuant to the Supreme Court&#039;s direction, so the cause for refund was treated as stemming from the rectified assessment rather than the original payment of duty. On that basis, limitation under Section 27 could not run from the earlier payment date, and the time-bar objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>