<?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 (5) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81310</link>
    <description>Refund of excise duty could not be used to reopen an approved and unchallenged classification list or to obtain retrospective benefit of an exemption notification. Where duty was paid without protest and the assessee had not established entitlement to the earlier exemption on the facts pleaded, Section 11B did not permit indirect reclassification for the disputed period; the exemption operated only from its effective date, so refund was admissible only from that date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:18:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81310</link>
      <description>Refund of excise duty could not be used to reopen an approved and unchallenged classification list or to obtain retrospective benefit of an exemption notification. Where duty was paid without protest and the assessee had not established entitlement to the earlier exemption on the facts pleaded, Section 11B did not permit indirect reclassification for the disputed period; the exemption operated only from its effective date, so refund was admissible only from that date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>