<?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>1992 (4) TMI 124 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81797</link>
    <description>The amended Rule 57E applied to a refund claim made after the amendment, even though the additional duty on inputs had been paid earlier. The decisive factor was the law in force when the benefit was claimed, not only the date of payment of duty. Since the refund application was filed after the 15-4-1987 amendment came into force, the amended rule was available to the claimant. The earlier view that the amendment could not be applied was rejected, and the claim succeeded on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:31:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 124 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81797</link>
      <description>The amended Rule 57E applied to a refund claim made after the amendment, even though the additional duty on inputs had been paid earlier. The decisive factor was the law in force when the benefit was claimed, not only the date of payment of duty. Since the refund application was filed after the 15-4-1987 amendment came into force, the amended rule was available to the claimant. The earlier view that the amendment could not be applied was rejected, and the claim succeeded on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>