<?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>1994 (6) TMI 69 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83329</link>
    <description>A refund claim arising from retrospective exemption was held not to be barred by limitation because the special six-month period under the validating statute was computed from 08-09-1986, and the claim was filed within time. The pending refund dispute was also held to be governed at final adjudication by the amended refund provisions, so Section 11B(2) and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied when finalising the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:22:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 69 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83329</link>
      <description>A refund claim arising from retrospective exemption was held not to be barred by limitation because the special six-month period under the validating statute was computed from 08-09-1986, and the claim was filed within time. The pending refund dispute was also held to be governed at final adjudication by the amended refund provisions, so Section 11B(2) and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied when finalising the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>