<?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>1984 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82314</link>
    <description>A rebate treated in substance as a refund of excise duty under an exemption notification fell within Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because Rule 10 governed recovery of erroneous refunds without distinguishing between cash refunds and credits to a Personal Ledger Account. On that basis, the Department could not rely on Rule 10A, as no separate basis for its invocation was shown. The recovery notice was therefore time-barred under Rule 10 and unsustainable under Rule 10A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:55:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82314</link>
      <description>A rebate treated in substance as a refund of excise duty under an exemption notification fell within Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because Rule 10 governed recovery of erroneous refunds without distinguishing between cash refunds and credits to a Personal Ledger Account. On that basis, the Department could not rely on Rule 10A, as no separate basis for its invocation was shown. The recovery notice was therefore time-barred under Rule 10 and unsustainable under Rule 10A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>