<?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 (1) TMI 301 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81220</link>
    <description>Promptly seeking credit for excess excise duty in the RT-12 return and before the proper officer can preserve the claim from a limitation objection where the authority remains silent and gives no direction to file a formal refund application. In this commentary, the later refund claim was treated as flowing from the original request for credit, so it was not time-barred. The substantive refund entitlement was not decided and was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:44:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 301 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81220</link>
      <description>Promptly seeking credit for excess excise duty in the RT-12 return and before the proper officer can preserve the claim from a limitation objection where the authority remains silent and gives no direction to file a formal refund application. In this commentary, the later refund claim was treated as flowing from the original request for credit, so it was not time-barred. The substantive refund entitlement was not decided and was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>