<?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>1991 (3) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81149</link>
    <description>Refund could not be granted for the period 11-5-1982 to 17-8-1982 because no classification list or refund claim was on record for that period, duty had not been paid under protest, and no periodical refund application had been filed to preserve limitation. The later claim was therefore time-barred under section 11B, and the fact that the appellant subsequently obtained the benefit of the notification did not revive an otherwise barred refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:22:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81149</link>
      <description>Refund could not be granted for the period 11-5-1982 to 17-8-1982 because no classification list or refund claim was on record for that period, duty had not been paid under protest, and no periodical refund application had been filed to preserve limitation. The later claim was therefore time-barred under section 11B, and the fact that the appellant subsequently obtained the benefit of the notification did not revive an otherwise barred refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>