<?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 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82899</link>
    <description>Goods cleared under Chapter X lost that procedural protection once duty was voluntarily debited in the PLA, because the goods then became duty-paid goods and any return or refund had to be tested under the provisions applicable to duty-paid goods, not Rule 196B. The refund order based on Chapter X was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. However, because the claim had not been examined under all other permissible statutory routes, the matter was remanded for fresh reconsideration on the correct legal footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:58:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82899</link>
      <description>Goods cleared under Chapter X lost that procedural protection once duty was voluntarily debited in the PLA, because the goods then became duty-paid goods and any return or refund had to be tested under the provisions applicable to duty-paid goods, not Rule 196B. The refund order based on Chapter X was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. However, because the claim had not been examined under all other permissible statutory routes, the matter was remanded for fresh reconsideration on the correct legal footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>