<?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>1990 (5) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80648</link>
    <description>A refund claim under the Customs Act was held time-barred because it was filed more than one year and eleven months after duty payment, and the later grant of exemption under Section 25(2) did not override the statutory limitation under Section 27. An earlier request for exemption was not a valid protest within Section 27(1), so it could not save the claim from the limitation bar. The claim was therefore rightly rejected as barred by time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:31:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80648</link>
      <description>A refund claim under the Customs Act was held time-barred because it was filed more than one year and eleven months after duty payment, and the later grant of exemption under Section 25(2) did not override the statutory limitation under Section 27. An earlier request for exemption was not a valid protest within Section 27(1), so it could not save the claim from the limitation bar. The claim was therefore rightly rejected as barred by time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>